<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<head>
   <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
   <title>Diplomacy Adjudicator Test Cases</title>
</head>
<body>
<center>
<h1>
DATC
</h1>
<h2>
DIPLOMACY ADJUDICATOR TEST CASES
</h2>
<h4>
Copyright: Lucas B. Kruijswijk
</h4>
</center>
<p>
<h3>HISTORY OF CHANGES</h3>
<p>
<table border=2>
<tr><th>Version</th><th>Date</th><th>Name</th><th>Change</th></tr>
<tr><td>1.0</td><td>2001-August-31</td><td>Lucas B. Kruijswijk</td><td>First public version</td></tr>
<tr><td>1.1</td><td>2001-August-31</td><td>Flooey X. McBob</td><td>Added Test Cases 2.C, 4.E (renumbered following)</td></tr>
<tr><td>1.2</td><td>2001-September-3</td><td>Lucas B. Kruijswijk</td><td>Added Test Cases 2.C, 4.A, 4.B, 4.C, 4.D (renumbered following)</td></tr>
<tr><td>1.3</td><td>2001-November-18</td><td>Lucas B. Kruijswijk</td><td>Major update. Processed review comments from<br>
Brian Roberts, Andrew Rose, Rick Desper, Simon Szykman and Millis L. Miller</td></tr>
<tr><td>1.4</td><td>2001-November-24</td><td>Lucas B. Kruijswijk</td><td>Added comments of Allan B. Calhamer on issue II.D</td></tr>
<tr><td>2.0</td><td>2003-December-13</td><td>Lucas B. Kruijswijk</td><td>Major update. Comments collected during year processed. Adjudication
algorithm added. Chapters rearranged. Some small changes in preferences. Choices of issues now numbered instead of bulleted.</td></tr>
<tr><td>2.1</td><td>2003-December-16</td><td>Lucas B. Kruijswijk</td><td>Small textual changes after comments from David McCooey. Added unwanted support.</td></tr>
<tr><td>2.2</td><td>2004-January-23</td><td>Lucas B. Kruijswijk</td><td>Added note on DATC compliancy verification.
Added test case 6.D.34, about support targeting own area. Small textual changes.</td></tr>
<tr><td>2.3</td><td>2004-February-6</td><td>Lucas B. Kruijswijk</td><td>Small textual changes after remarks from Christian
Hagenah. Added version number. Changed license. Note on certification after change.
Added issue 4.A.7 and test cases related to this issue. Added test 6.E.15, which
the DPTG fails to adjudicate correctly.</td></tr>
<tr><td>2.4</td><td>2004-February-10</td><td>Lucas B. Kruijswijk</td><td>Corrected test cases 6.G.16,
6.G.17 and 6.G.18.</td></tr>
<tr><td>2.5</td><td>2009-August-17</td><td>Lucas B. Kruijswijk</td><td>Made a reference to
"The Math of Adjudication" article of the Diplomatic Pouch.</td></tr>
</table>
<p>Reviewed by:
<ul>
<li>Flooey X. McBob</li>
<li>Brian Roberts</li>
<li>Andrew Rose</li>
<li>Rick Desper</li>
<li>Simon Szykman</li>
<li>Millis L. Miller</li>
<li>David McCooey</li>
<li>Christian Hagenah</li>
<li>Estaban U.C. Castro</li>
<li>Ronnie van 't Westeinde</li>
</ul>

<p>You are free to copy the whole or parts of this document.
If parts are copied in another document, you may use those parts
as if they are written by yourself. However, if any changes are
made to this document, make very clear that it is not the same
document anymore.

<p>Diplomacy is the Avalon Hill Game Company's trademark for its game of
international intrigue, which game is copyright 1976 by Avalon Hill.
Avalon Hill belongs to Hasbro.

<h3>TABLE OF CONTENTS</h3>
<p>
<a href="#1">1. INTRODUCTION</a><br>
<a href="#2">2. 2000 RULEBOOK/DATC COMPLIANCY</a><br>
<a href="#3">3. HISTORY OF RULES</a><br>
<a href="#4">4. DISPUTABLE ISSUES</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#4.A">A. CONVOY ISSUES</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#4.B">B. COASTAL ISSUES</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#4.C">C. UNIT DESIGNATION AND NATIONALITY ISSUES</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#4.D">D. TOO MANY AND TOO FEW ORDERS</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#4.E">E. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES</a><br>
<a href="#5">5. THE PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#5.A">A. OVERVIEW OF ADJUDICATION DECISIONS</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#5.B">B. PRECISE DESCRIPTION OF MAKING DECISIONS</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#5.C">C. FROM DECISIONS TO ALGORITHM</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#5.D">D. SIMPLIFICATIONS AND OPTIMIZATIONS</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#5.E">E. PERFORMANCE</a><br>
<a href="#6">6. TEST CASES</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#6.A">A. TEST CASES, BASIC CHECKS</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#6.B">B. TEST CASES, COASTAL ISSUES</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#6.C">C. TEST CASES, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#6.D">D. TEST CASES, SUPPORTS AND DISLODGES</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#6.E">E. TEST CASES, HEAD TO HEAD BATTLES AND BELEAGUERED GARRISON</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#6.F">F. TEST CASES, CONVOYS</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#6.G">G. TEST CASES, CONVOYING TO ADJACENT PLACES</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#6.H">H. TEST CASES, RETREATING</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#6.I">I. TEST CASES, BUILDING</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#6.J">J. TEST CASES, CIVIL DISORDER AND DISBANDS</a><br>
<a href="#7">7 COLONIAL VARIANT</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#7.A">A. TEST CASES, HONG KONG OPTIONAL RULE</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#7.B">B. TEST CASES, TRANS SIBERIAN RAILROAD OPTIONAL RULE</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#7.C">C. TEST CASES, SUEZ CANAL OPTIONAL RULE</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#7.D">D. TEST CASES, TRANS-SIBERIAN RAILROAD AND SUEZ CANAL COMBINED ISSUES</a><br>
<a href="#8">8 ICE VARIANT</a><br>
<a href="#9">9 CONVOYING COASTAL AREA VARIANT</a><br>
<a href="#10">10 DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER VARIANT</a><br>
<a href="#11">11 BUILD IN ANY SUPPLY CENTER VARIANT</a><br>
<a href="#12">12 1898 VARIANT</a><br>

<a name="1"><h3>1. INTRODUCTION</h3></a>
<p>Writing an adjudicator computer program for the game Diplomacy
(TM) is not an easy job. Many adjudicator programs contain several
bugs on their first release and even after some years, when the most
severe bugs were removed, adjudication errors could still be found
for more complex situations. To achieve a high quality adjudicator,
 the programmer has to overcome the following difficulties:
<ul>
<li>Different rulebooks.</li>
<li>Ambiguities in the rulebooks.</li>
<li>An algorithm that is sophisticated enough to handle complex situations.</li>
<li>Systematic testing of the adjudicator.</li>
</ul>
<p>This document is a guide in handling these problems. With this
document it is possible to write an adjudicator that is correct for
the first release.
<p>The principle of this document is to give the reader information and
not to tell the reader how to do things. Therefore, all information is
presented as neutral as possible and given with arguments or with
reference to the source.
<p>The primary sources of this document are the official English rulebooks.
The additional sources are the 1998 DPTG (Diplomacy Players Technical Guide),
comments from mister Calhamer (the creator of the game), magazines from
the publishers of the game, various articles, discussions and house rules
found on the internet.
<p>A scientific approach has been taken to deal with all this information.
If there was evidence that a certain idea or opinion is supported by
a significant part of the Diplomacy (TM) community, then it was added to
this document. This makes this document the most elaborated and complete source
on the rules of Diplomacy (TM). Even so, it was not possible to list
everyone's individual opinion.
<p>An overview of the official English rulebooks is given in chapter
<a href="#3">3</a>. These rulebooks have in certain cases a different
ruling and even when the latest rulebook is taken, then still some
rule issues exist. These issues are listed in chapter <a href="#4">4</a>
with the alternatives to handle them. An analysis of the process of
adjudication is in chapter <a href="#5">5</a>. Writing an adjudicator
program is a straight forward job with this analysis. Finally, an
adjudicator program needs to be tested in a systematic way and chapter
<a href="#6">6</a> contains an extensive list of test cases with the
expected resolution.
<p>In case the rules are not clear on a certain situation, then the
alternatives are in the list of issues and in the test cases. To
prevent that the reader becomes lost in lots of choices I
(Lucas B. Kruijswijk) commented every rule issue.
Those comments contain my preference how the rule should be
interpreted. In this way the reader can start with these preferences
and deviate where he or she wishes. To make a clear distinction
between the text that is not disputed and my comments with my
preferences, my comments are written in <i>italics</i>. Note however,
that my preferences are based on an extensive study on the rules.
Although you may dispute them, the choices are certainly very
acceptable within the Diplomacy(TM) community.
<p>With the elaborated information about the rules, this document
can also be used by people that judge a game manually. The preferences
can be used as default house rules in case the own house rules
of the judge does not cover a certain topic.
<p>The version of this document consists of two numbers. The first
number will change and only change, when one or more preferences
changes. The second one, is a sequence number.
<p>In chapter <a href="#7">7</a> and further variants are handled.
Variants are games that follow the rules of Diplomacy with a
different map or with some additional rules. The chapters on variants
are not complete yet. For instance, Air Units and Machiavelli are not
handled yet.
<a name="2"><h3>2. 2000 RULEBOOK/DATC COMPLIANCY</h3></a>
<p>Everyone is free to interpret the rules as he or she wants.
But people want to know, which rules are used. Therefore, the
term '2000 rulebook/DATC compliant' is introduced. An automated
adjudicator may call itself '2000 rulebook/DATC compliant'
when the following requirements are met:
<ul>
<li>The 2000 rules are followed.</li>
<li>For the cases where the 2000 rules are not clear, the
preferences in this document must be followed. This only
counts for the issues <a href="#4.A.1">4.A.1</a>,
<a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>, <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>,
<a href="#4.A.4">4.A.4</a>, <a href="#4.A.5">4.A.5</a>,
<a href="#4.A.6">4.A.6</a>, <a href="#4.A.7">4.A.7</a>,
<a href="#4.B.1">4.B.1</a>, <a href="#4.B.2">4.B.2</a>,
<a href="#4.B.3">4.B.3</a>, <a href="#4.B.4">4.B.4</a>,
<a href="#4.B.7">4.B.7</a>, <a href="#4.D.7">4.D.7</a>,
<a href="#4.D.8">4.D.8</a>, <a href="#4.D.9">4.D.9</a>,
<a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>, <a href="#4.E.3">4.E.3</a>,
<a href="#4.E.4">4.E.4</a> and <a href="#4.E.5">4.E.5</a>.</li>
<li>The adjudicator must pass all test cases of the standard
game according to the preferences of the mentioned issues.</li>
<li>In case the adjudicator is in the English language and
uses abbreviations for reporting, then the abbreviations of
the 2000 rules must be used. The adjudicator may accept other
abbreviations. The abbreviation for 'Denmark' is 'Den' (not
listed in the 2000 rules).</li>
<li>The developers of the adjudicator must be devoted to
resolve any reported bug in adjudication in the next update
of the adjudicator.</li>
</ul>
<p>The idea of the DATC is not to enforce one way of
interpretation of the rules. Therefore, you may call an
adjudicator '2000 rulebook/DATC compliant' as long as
you list the deviations with the specified requirements.
However, the adjudicator may not fail on any of the
test cases (of course, the results must be according
to chosen preferences). Deviations does not need to
be listed, when they can be turned off or when it is
an extension in a client program that does not change
anything when it is not used (for instance choice b
for <a href="#4.A.6">4.A.6</a>, choice a for
<a href="#4.E.4">4.E.4</a> and choice a for
<a href="#4.E.5">4.E.5</a>).
<p>Developers are considered to be honorable
persons and may perform verification by their selves.
After an update of the DATC an adjudicator does not
need to be retested to keep the status of
'2000 rulebook/DATC compliant'.

<a name="3"><h3>3. HISTORY OF RULES</h3></a>
<p>Allan Calhamer started the development of Diplomacy in 1953.
However the first commercial version was not on the market
before 1959. So, the first real rulebook is from 1959.
<p>Games Research bought the rights of Diplomacy in 1960 and their
first edition was in 1961. Except from some restyling and the
copyright notice of Games Research, the rules of 1961 are not
different from the 1959 rules. These rulebooks have many
ambiguities and are rather useless. Dealing with the issues
of these rulebooks is out of the scope of this document.
<p>Most of the issues of the 1959 and 1961 rulebooks were
identified and addressed in the 1971 rulebook. The 1971
rulebook is the first mature rulebook. Since this rulebook
has been popular for a long time and maybe still people
play according to these rules, the differences with newer
rulebooks are all explained in this document.
<p>In 1976 Avalon Hill bought the rights from Games Research. In
their first edition in 1976, they kept the rules the same and
they only put their own name on the rulebook. In this document,
only to the first appearance of a set of rules is referred. That
means that the 1971/1976 rulebooks are referred as the 1971
rulebook in this document.
<p>In 1982 Avalon Hill made a new edition of the game and made
some small, but significant changes to the rules. These changes
include the multi-route convoy disruption rule (see issue
<a href="#4.A.1">4.A.1</a>), convoy disruption paradox rule
(see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>) and some clarifications
on convoying to adjacent places (see issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>).
<p>In 1992 Avalon Hill they introduced the 'Diplomacy de Luxe' edition.
The rulebook was restyled, but the rules are identical to the 1982
rules. The rulebook does also contain a list of abbreviations for
the provinces. Since, the rules did not change, the 1982/1992
rulebooks are referred as the 1982 rulebook in this document.
<p>In 1998 Avalon Hill was bought by Hasbro and in 2000 the first Hasbro
edition emerged. Note that you can see the year 2000 on the front
page of the rulebook, however the copyright notice on the last
page says 1999. Some people refer to this rules as the 1999 rules.
In this document it is assumed that the front page is read more
than the last page and therefore these rules are referred to as
the 2000 rules. To make the rules more readable, the rules were
completely rewritten. Edi Birsan was the main contributor to this
rulebook. Except from restyling, there are also some real changes
to the rules. The unpopular 1982 convoy, disruption paradox rule
(see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>) was changed again. The
issue on convoys to adjacent provinces was further clarified (see
issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>). Waiving builds is explicitly
allowed (see issue <a href="#4.D.7">4.D.7</a>) and you can very
well interpret the rules in such way that they do not allow the
refusal of support by ordering an illegal order (see issue
<a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>). Also a significant change in the
abbreviations of the provinces (note that the abbreviation of
'Denmark' is missing).
<p>Unfortunately there are a few changes in the 2000 rulebook
that made things worse than the 1982 rules. A rather minor issue
is the removal of units in civil disorder (see issue
<a href="#4.D.8">4.D.8</a>). In the 1971 and the 1982 rulebooks
this was already rather vague, but in the 2000 rules it is
really a mess. A more serious error is that it was forgotten to
say that a failed convoy due to dislodged convoying fleets, has
no influence on the destination province. Page 12 of the 2000 rulebook:
<p><blockquote>Dislodgement of a fleet in a convoy causes the
convoy to fail. If a Fleet ordered to convoy is dislodged during
the turn, the Army to be convoyed remains in its original province.
</blockquote>
<p>While rule XII.3 of the 1971 and 1982 rules say:
<p><blockquote>
DISRUPTING A CONVOY. If a fleet ordered to convoy is dislodged
during the turn, the army to be convoyed remains in its original
province and has no effect on the province to which it was ordered.
</blockquote>
<p>There are several reasons to assume that the 2000 rulebook was not
intended like this and that this must be considered an error in
the rules. First of all, Edi Birsan the main contributor to the
2000 rulebook, confirmed that this was not intended. Second, there
is evidence in the rulebook itself that the rule should be read as
the 1971/1982 rule. The whole page 16 would become unnecessary if
convoying armies can still cut support when the convoy is dislodged
(there are no paradoxes anymore). But especially the following phrase
on that page is clear evidence:
<p><blockquote>
Italy could argue that dislodgement of the Fleet disrupted the convoy so
that the Army could not arrive in Naples to cut the support. (Italy
could state the rule, "Dislodgement of a fleet in a convoy causes the
convoy to fail.")
</blockquote>
<p>Since in the research for this document no evidence was found that
there is a significant group of people that actually play that a
disrupted convoy can still cut support (or bounce another unit),
this is not listed as a disputable issue in chapter <a href="#4">4</a>,
but just treated as an error and that the 1971/1982 rule was meant.
<p>Finally, there are numerous alternative rulebooks. For instance
the rulebook of the variant Colonial Diplomacy. This rulebook is
based on the 1971 rules (although the copyright is after 1982) and
is discussed in chapter <a href="#7">7</a>. Furthermore there are
several translated rulebooks made for non-English versions of
Diplomacy. These are not treated in this document. With the 2000
edition also an CD-ROM version was released by
Hasbro/Avalon Hill/Microprose. This program has a tutorial for the
rules. In the research of this document no additional information
could be found about whether this version contains a paper rulebook
and if it is any different from the rulebook supplied with the
board game. So, obviously this version is not
handled in this document and if it exists and it contains the
1999 or 2000 copyright notice, then we still refer to the
rulebook of the board game when the 2000 rulebook is mentioned.
<p>As last remark must be said that according to some reliable
sources, Allan Calhamer has the right to veto any changes to the rules.

<a name="4"><h3>4. DISPUTABLE ISSUES</h3></a>
<p>When playing Diplomacy, there is one golden rule.
Making orders public is irreversible. If during a turn
someone discovers that the adjudication was wrong, this
can be corrected and even when the orders are submitted,
the orders can discarded and be rewritten. However, when
the orders are made public, the players have shown their
true intentions and it is not possible to hide them
again.
<p>This golden rule has two consequences. First, when the
orders are made public, the adjudication of the previous
turn, becomes final. Changing the adjudication of a previous
turn, would lead to a big mess. Second, when the orders
are made public, a decision has to be made on those orders.
This may lead to a serious dispute between the players, when
those orders are not clear or the rulebook is disputable on
the situation. Therefore, the main focus is on issues
related to the pieces on the board and interpreting
the written orders (some of them are irrelevant for an automated
adjudicator, but are listed nevertheless). So, the problem of
assigning powers to the players is not discussed, since this can
easily be handled by the players.
<p>The geography of the map is not disputed and therefore not
discussed. To surprise to some new players, Norway is connected
to St Petersburg both for army as for fleet, but this is not
disputed. Although also not disputed, on some maps it is not
completely clear, that Liverpool is connected to North Atlantic
Ocean and Clyde is not connected to Irish Sea.
<p>The issues in this chapter are not a FAQ (Frequently Asked
Question) list, but most frequently asked questions can be found
in the test cases. For instance the coastal crawl in test case
<a href="#6.B.13">6.B.13</a>.
<p><i>After extensive study of the rules and discussions on the
internet, my preferences are finally based on the following principles:
<ul>
<li>To follow the latest official rulebook as accurate as possible.
For the moment this means the 2000 rulebook.</li>
<li>To make a choice that supports the game. This means for instance that
it should be avoided that the orders are executed different from the
players intentions or that a player is surprised by an attack, because
the player couldn't imagine that it was possible.</li>
<li>To make a choice that is reasonable for all ways of playing, face to
face, play by email, playing on the web or a PDA.</li>
</ul>
I do not consider any aesthethical arguments. To my opinion, a rule is
aesthethical when it is based on the points made above.</i>

<a name="4.A"><h3>4.A. CONVOY ISSUES</h3></a>

<a name="4.A.1"><h4>4.A.1. MULTI-ROUTE CONVOY DISRUPTION</h4></a>
<p>When a convoy has multiple routes, the question rises when the
convoy is disrupted.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The convoy is disrupted when one of the routes is disrupted.<br>
This is according to the 1971 rulebook and the DPTG.</li>
<li>The convoy is disrupted when all of the possible routes are disrupted.<br>
This is according to the 1982 and 2000 rulebook.</li>
</ol>
<p>The 1971 rule has as disadvantage that a player that has a fleet
that is almost certainly dislodged, can give an "unwanted convoy"
as in test case <a href="#6.F.10">6.F.10</a>. The DPTG avoids this problem by skipping
any foreign units from a convoy when there is a route without
foreign units. However, this solves the problem only partially.
When there is no route without foreign units and there are
two routes with each a different foreign fleet, it can not be decided
based on the orders whether one of the convoy orders is unwanted
(see test case <a href="#6.F.11">6.F.11</a>). Probably due to these issues
the rule was changed in the 1982 rulebook.
<p><i>I prefer to use the 1982 and 2000 rulebook (choice b) on this
issue, because it prevents the mentioned problems. So, a convoy is
disrupted when all routes are disrupted.</i>

<a name="4.A.2"><h4>4.A.2. CONVOY DISRUPTION PARADOXES</h4></a>
<p>A convoy disruption paradox is a situation with a possible
disrupted convoy and for which the rules give no resolution or
more than one resolution.
<p>Some people argue that some situations are not convoy paradoxes,
since the rules give a resolution for those situations. Hence, for
a proper discussion on paradoxes, rule XII.5 of the 1971, 1976,
1982 and 1992 rulebooks and the rule on the top of page 16 of the
2000 rulebook, should not be taken into account in the above
definition of a paradox.
<p>In case of a paradox, the smallest subset of orders for which
the paradox still exists, is the core of the paradox.
In case there are several independent paradoxes on the board, then
it is possible that there are two different subsets of orders with
the same number of orders. In that case, just one can be taken to
proceed. Since the paradoxes are independent it doesn't matter which
one is handled first.
<p>The following ways for handling convoy disruption paradoxes are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The 1971 rule about this issue is:<br>
"If a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting a fleet which is attacking
one of the convoy fleets, that support is not cut."
This rule has a few drawbacks. The rule does not have a resolution for second
order paradoxes (see test cases <a href="#6.F.22">6.F.22</a>,
<a href="#6.F.23">6.F.23</a>, and <a href="#6.F.24">6.F.24</a>)
and the betrayal paradox (see test case <a href="#6.F.18">6.F.18</a>). In some
cases it conflicts with the dislodge rule, although, the common interpretation
is that this rule takes precedence (see test case <a href="#6.F.17">6.F.17</a>).
Finally, when multi-route convoys are allowed and when such convoys are
only disrupted when all routes are disrupted (note that this is not
the case in the 1971 rulebook), it may result to some strange adjudication
in some rare situations (see test case <a href="#6.F.19">6.F.19</a>).</li>
<li>The 1982 rule about this issue is:<br>
"If a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting an action
in a body of water; and that body of water contains a convoying fleet,
that support is not cut. ".
The advantage of this rule is that it is a simple and effective rule
that eliminates all paradoxes. Compared to other rules that eliminate
all paradoxes, it is the easiest rule to program in an adjudicator.
However, the disadvantage is that it effects not only the paradoxical situations,
but also many other cases. This has as consequence that players
can do tricks with this rule to take advantage (see test cases <a href="#6.F.20">6.F.20</a>
and <a href="#6.F.21">6.F.21</a>).
It is also not clear what a "convoying fleet" means. Does it mean
a fleet that is ordered to convoy? Or must there be at least an
army that tries to convoy? Or must there be a possible route?
Finally, as with the 1971 rule, it conflicts with the dislodge rule
in some cases, although, the common interpretation is that this rule
takes precedence (see test case <a href="#6.F.17">6.F.17</a>).</li>
<li>The 2000 rule about this issue is:<br>
"A convoyed Army does not cut the support of a unit supporting an attack against
one of the fleets necessary for the army to convoy."
This rule is just the 1971 rule, but adapted for the changed multi-route convoy
disruption rule (see issue <a href="#4.A.1">4.A.1</a>) which was introduced in the
1982 rulebook. This has as advantage that it leads to more
logical adjudication in case of multi-route convoys (see test case
<a href="#6.F.19">6.F.19</a>). It has also all disadvantages of the 1971 rule.
So, the rule does not have a resolution for second order paradoxes (see test
cases <a href="#6.F.22">6.F.22</a>, <a href="#6.F.23">6.F.23</a> and <a href="#6.F.24">6.F.24</a>)
and the betrayal paradox (see test case <a href="#6.F.18">6.F.18</a>). Also, in some
cases it conflicts with the dislodge rule and again the common interpretation
is that this rule takes precedence (see test case <a href="#6.F.17">6.F.17</a>).</li>
<li>Simon Szykman alternative (reworded):<br>
"If a situation arises in which an army's convoy order results in a paradoxical
adjudication, the moves of all involved convoying armies fail and have no effect on
the place where they were ordered to convoy.". This rule was proposed by Simon
Szykman in a discussion with Manus Hand in the Diplomatic Pouch Zine (1999, Fall Retreat).
Manus Hand defended the 1982 rule.
In almost all situations this results in the same adjudication as the 2000 rule. Only
in case that the convoying fleet dislodges a unit (see test case <a href="#6.F.17">6.F.17</a>)
the result is different. However, as said before you must assume that the 2000 paradox
rule takes precedence over the dislodge rule in this specific case. If this assumption
is not made, then the 2000 rulebook does not have a resolution for this case and then it can
be defended that the Szykman rule is compatible with the 2000 rulebook.
The advantage of the Szykman rule is that it also has a resolution for second order paradoxes
(see test cases <a href="#6.F.22">6.F.22</a>, <a href="#6.F.23">6.F.23</a> and
<a href="#6.F.24">6.F.24</a>). Another advantage
is that it works for paradoxes that can occur with convoyable coastal areas that
appear in some variants (see test cases <a href="#9.E">9.E</a>,
<a href="#9.F">9.F</a> and <a href="#9.G">9.G</a>). A disadvantage is that for
determine the involved convoying armies, the paradox core should be calculated.
However this is possible as is shown in chapter <a href="#5">5</a>.</li>
<li>The 'All Hold' alternative:<br>
"If a situation arises in which an army's convoy order results in a paradoxical
adjudication, all the moves part of the paradoxical situation fail."
This rule is often used as "backup" rule when the 1971 or 2000 fail to give
a result. The advantage of this rule is that as in the Szykman alternative, it has
a resolution for all paradoxes and also for paradoxes that can occur with
convoyable areas. However, there are some drawbacks:
<ul>
<li>The result for the most common paradox (see test case <a href="#6.F.14">6.F.14</a>),
a situation that might appear during actual play, is not according to any rulebook
and current practice (of course, this is not true if it is only used as backup rule).</li>
<li>In case of multiple possible resolutions (see also test case <a href="#6.F.14">6.F.14</a>),
it does not take one of the possible resolutions. From an aesthethical point of view,
one might like a rule which keeps the other rules as much as possible intact.</li>
<li>Applying the rule is error prone in manual adjudication. Since in normal
play a turn consists of multiple moves, a mistake can easily be made when
deciding which moves are part of the paradox core.
This difficulty does not exist with the Szykman alternative, since there
are often only a very limited number of convoys in a turn. Although the
Szykman rule is not easy to comprehend, people that adjudicate manually
can't do much wrong when applying it.</li>
</ul>
In practice the 'All Hold' rule is only used as "backup" rule. However,
when this rule is referenced in this document, the rule is considered
for all paradoxical situations. Where a situation must be considered
paradoxical, as defined in this issue.</li>
<li>The DPTG resolution is a refinement on the 'All Hold' rule. In case
the paradox has two resolutions and in one of the resolutions all the
convoys of the paradox core are disrupted, then this resolution is chosen. In
all other cases the 'All Hold' rule is used. The disadvantage of this rule
is that it is more complicated then the Szykman rule and the 'All Hold'
rule. Not only the paradox has to be calculated, but also whether the
disruption of all convoys is a resolution consistent with the rules.
For some algorithms this needs significant additional coding, while
the resolutions of the simpler Szykman rule or 'All Hold' rule differ
only is some very rare cases.</li>
</ol>
<p>Several people proposed alternatives for the paradox problem. However,
only the suggestions above have significant support from the Diplomacy
community. Some people use the principle of 'cause' in their alternative.
Where 'cause' can be a direct cause, but also an indirect cause. It is
rather unclear what the advantages are of introducing this new notion,
while it introduces significant complexity for automated adjudication.
<p><i>For making a preference it is necessary to decide what is important and
what is less important. I think that the adjudication result in case of
a paradox is the least important thing, since the paradoxes are a rare
phenomenon in actual play and any rule in case of a paradox does not
change the balance of the game. However, I think the following is
important:
<ul>
<li>The latest official rule is preferred by default.</li>
<li>It should have a resolution for all paradoxes (for closing the discussion).</li>
<li>Rule tricks should be avoided such as in test cases <a href="#6.F.20">6.F.20</a> and
<a href="#6.F.21">6.F.21</a>.</li>
<li>For explaining the rules to a new player it should be sufficient
to say that paradoxes with convoys are possible and that there
are some special rules for it. If the rule has also impact on
situations that are not paradoxical (such as the 1982 rule) it is
necessary to explain the rule to new players. And I don't like
to bother new players with such technical details.</li>
</ul>
<p>Based on these guidelines, I prefer the Simon Szykman alternative
(choice d). It can be enough defended that this rule is compatible
with the 2000 rulebook. Furthermore the case which can be disputed on
the compatibility of the Szykman rule with the 2000 rulebook, is very
theoretically and will not appear in real play. I have the impression
that the 1982 rule has never been very popular, since
I did not find many house rules that follow the 1982 rule (although I did
find some adjudicators that follow the 1982 rule).
</i>

<a name="4.A.3"><h4>4.A.3. CONVOYING TO ADJACENT PLACE</h4></a>
<p>It is allowed to convoy to an adjacent place. This can be used
to swap two units (such as in test case <a href="#6.G.1">6.G.1</a>).
If the units are ordered in such way that a convoy to an adjacent place
is possible, the question arises whether the convoy route
must be considered or the land route.
<p>It can not just be said that the land route is taken or the
convoy route, comparable with the multiple convoy routes rule.
The reason for this is that different rules apply in the different
situations. If an army takes the land route and the unit on
the target area moves in the opposite direction, then there is a
head to head battle. While in case of the convoy route there
is no head to head battle. If the attacked unit is dislodged
by the head to head battle, the attacked unit has no effect
on the area from which it is attacked, while in case of a
convoy it still has effect (see test cases <a href="#6.G.9">6.G.9</a>
and <a href="#6.G.10">6.G.10</a>). It is also possible that the
convoy route is only available when the land route is taken
(see test case <a href="#6.G.11">6.G.11</a>). Finally it has
a relation with the issue of cutting support by a convoy to
adjacent place (see <a href="#4.A.4">4.A.4</a>) and the issue of
retreat after dislodged by a convoy to adjacent place
(see <a href="#4.A.5">4.A.5</a>).
<p>For these reasons it must be clear which route is taken at some
point during adjudication.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The 1971 rulebook does not have a rule that specifies which
route has to be taken. The simplest solution is to choose always
the convoy route above the land route. The disadvantage of
this interpretation is that all kinds of army "kidnapping"
are possible. This can result in an unexpected swap (see test case
<a href="#6.G.2">6.G.2</a>), but also in rather unfair failures of
moves with superior power (see test case <a href="#6.G.3">6.G.3</a> and
<a href="#6.G.4">6.G.4</a>).
</li>
<li>In March 1979, Rod Walker clarified the 1971 rules to some
extend in the  "QUESTIONS & ANSWERS" section of the "THE GAMER'S
GUIDE TO DIPLOMACY", 2nd edition. The following can be found:<br><br>
<blockquote>11. Q: We think there is a conflict in the Rulebook.
These orders might not occur often, but what if they do?<br><br>
ENG: F Edi-Nth, F Lon S F Edi-Nth.<br>
FRA: F Nth C GERMAN A Hol-Bel.<br>
GER: A Hol-Bel.<br><br>
Doesn't the disruption of the convoy prevent the German army from
moving?<br><br>
A: No. The Rules (VII.1, third paragraph) clearly state that an army
may move to an adjacent province if unopposed. In this situation,
the convoy order is not relevant to the army's ability to move from
Holland to Belgium. Even if the F Nth were German, so that it was
clear that the German player intended (for some arcane reason) that
the army should move by convoy, Rule VII.1 would still operate to
allow A Hol-Bel to succeed if unopposed.
Actually, the only time you might expect to see an army convoyed
between adjacent provinces is when an otherwise illegal exchange of
units is taking place (see Rule XIV.5, third paragraph). Consider
this situation:<br><br>
ENG: F Edi-Nth, F Lon S F Edi-Nth.<br>
GER: F Bel-Hol, A Hol-Bel, F Nth C A Hol-Bel.<br><br>
In this situation, the German F Nth is dislodged and the convoy is
disrupted. The two German movement orders, both still legal, now
boil down to a stand-off.</blockquote>
Given this information, the following rule can be defined:
"The land route is taken except when the unit in the target
area moves in opposite direction.". This prevents at least
the type of kidnapping as in test case <a href="#6.G.3">6.G.3</a>, but
some unwanted convoys are still possible as in test case
<a href="#6.G.2">6.G.2</a> and <a href="#6.G.4">6.G.4</a>.
An advantage of this rule is that issue <a href="#4.A.4">4.A.4</a>
is not relevant anymore and the already theoretical issue
<a href="#4.A.5">4.A.5</a> is even more theoretical.</li>
<li>The previous choice can be refined as follows:
"The land route is taken except when the unit in the target
area moves in opposite direction and there is an undisrupted
convoy route.". This means that first the convoy route must
be adjudicated, before it can be decided whether the army
moves over land or via convoy. The disadvantage is that
adjudication is more complicated, because this is the only
choice where the decision whether an army moves by convoy
can not be decided before the real adjudication starts
(see also <a href="#5.B.10">5.B.10</a>).
However, it is possible to do a proper adjudication, because
the units that move in opposite direction do not disturb any
other order and therefore the convoys can adjudicated first. A
paradoxical situation as in test <a href="#6.G.11">6.G.11</a>,
does not lead to any issues. This rule prevents the kidnapping for all
dislodging purposes as in test case <a href="#6.G.3">6.G.3</a>
and <a href="#6.G.4">6.G.4</a>, however an unintended swap
as in test case <a href="#6.G.2">6.G.2</a> is not prevented.
An advantage of this rule is that both issue <a href="#4.A.4">4.A.4</a>
and issue <a href="#4.A.5">4.A.5</a> are not relevant anymore.</li>
<li>The 1982 and 2000 ruling.<br>
The 1982 rules say: "BOTH A CONVOY ROUTE AND AN OVERLAND ROUTE. If an army
could arrive at its destination either overland or by convoy,
one route must be considered and the other disregarded,
depending upon intent as shown by the totality of the
orders written by the player governing the army".
The "intent" is rather vague. In the 2000 rulebook this is
completely rewritten. It is more specific and does not use
the term "intent". However, it does follow the principle
of "intent" and therefore it is rather common to interpret
the 1982 rules as the 2000 rules the same. When in the
2000 rules, one of the convoying fleets is of
the same nationality of the army that convoys,
then the intent is to convoy.
There is still a special case when the fleet of the
same nationality indeed orders the army to convoy to
the right place, but the fleet is not a part of an
ordered convoy path (see test case <a href="#6.G.6">6.G.6</a>)
or not part of a possible convoy path (see test case <a href="#6.G.7">6.G.7</a>).
The 2000 rulebook is not clear on this, but the most
common interpretation is that when the fleet is part
of a possible convoy path, the intent is still to convoy
and therefore the convoy path should be chosen. However,
if the fleet is not part of a possible convoy path, then
the intent is to confuse the judge and therefore the
land route should be taken. Furthermore, an impossible
convoy order can be treated as illegal (see issue
<a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>) and in such case it is ignored anyway.
When the order for the army contains the words
"via Convoy" or "by Convoy" the intent is to convoy.
Note that if there is only a land route possible,
the intent is unimportant. That means that if the
order contains "via Convoy" and there is no possible
convoy route ordered, the land route should
still be considered (see also test case <a href="#6.G.8">6.G.8</a>).</li>
<li>Explicit adjacent convoying.<br>
The DPTG specifies explicit adjacent convoying. If there is
a land route and the order does not contains "via Convoy"
or "by Convoy" only the land route should be considered.
If the order contains "via Convoy" or "by Convoy" only
convoy routes should be considered even when there are
no convoy routes.</li>
</ol>
<p>There are two notations to order an army that it should
use a convoy. The "by Convoy" notation is the most common
notation, however the "via Convoy" notation is used in the
2000 rulebook. Through this document the notation of the
2000 rulebook is used.
<p><i>The 2000 rule solves indeed the problem of kidnapped
armies. However, the rule is maybe a little too much. It
introduces quite a lot of details. Furthermore, in the
research of this document a case was found were two players
(in a game played with the 2000 rules) wanted to swap,
but didn't give the orders properly. It must be realized
that a swap with a foreign fleet maybe only happens one out
of ten games. If a face to face game takes about six hours,
then you need sixty hours of play to have at least one
experience with the 'via Convoy' order. So, what is worse?
Take also into account that the kidnapping of armies is also
fun. I advice that if there is a new edition of the
rules that choice c must be considered (after analyzing
a few dozen of games on the consequences). For the moment
I prefer to follow the rules and that means choice d.</i>

<a name="4.A.4"><h4>4.A.4. SUPPORT CUT ON ATTACK ON ITSELF VIA CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>A move can not cut a support, if the support is a support of an attack
on itself. But what if the move is via convoy (see test case
<a href="#6.G.13">6.G.13</a>)?
<p>Note, if a convoy to an adjacent place can only take place when the unit
moves in opposite direction (choice b an c for issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>),
then this issue is not relevant anymore. Then the moving unit will take the land
route and the support will not cut.
<p>The following two interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The support is not cut.</li>
<li>The support is cut (DPTG).</li>
</ol>
<p>The main issue is the interpretation of the word 'from' as
used in the rulebook. If 'from' is interpreted as the starting position
of the army being convoyed, then the support is not cut. However, if
the attack is coming 'from' the body of water, then the support is cut.
<p>This has been discussed on the newsgroup 'rec.games.diplomacy' and
on the 21th November 2001 Randy Hudson and Mike Lease gave the following
arguments why 'from' should be interpreted as the starting position of the army:
<p><blockquote>It's not phrased as a clarification of the "cutting support" rule
(Rule X) in the 1976 rules. I've now printed out a copy of the
2000 rules from the Hasbro web site, and in the explanation, it
offers the example:<br><br>
France: A Tun-Nap, F Tyn C A Tun-Nap<br>
Italy: F Ion-Tyn, F Nap S F Ion-Tyn<br><br>
The explanatory text goes on to say that France could argue that
support is cut (thus preventing the convoy from being disrupted),
citing the rule, "Support is cut if the unit giving support is
attacked from any province but the one where support is being
given." IOW, since the army is coming from Tunis, it would
normally be entitled to cut the support for F Ion-Tyn given by
Naples, thereby preventing the convoy from being disrupted.
This "new rule" (author's words) gives an exception to that
rule, overriding the usual rule and eliminating the paradox.
This rule WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY if the army were deemed to
be coming from Tyn (the space being attacked). But the author
says it IS NECESSARY ("...this rule takes precedence" [over the
usual rule that would apply]), therefore, the army MUST be
deemed to come from Tun, and this rule exists to provide an
exception to avoid paradox. But it only applies to a situation
in which a convoy would be disrupted if the support is effective,
but not disrupted if the support is ineffective. Therefore,
for all other convoys, the ordinary interpretation should be
that the army is deemed to come from the province in which it
began the turn, and thus an army which can reach a province
either via land or via convoy cannot cut support for an action
against the province in which it started the turn, whether or
not it is convoyed to the supporting unit's province. QED.</blockquote>
<p>Stephen Agar sent this problem to Allan Calhamer (the creator
of Diplomacy). Before he got a response he followed up with
the arguments of Randy Hudson and Mike Lease. On the 24th of November 2001,
Allan Calhamer responded:
<p><blockquote>Good argument. I had always thought of the Army as coming
from its province, not from the body of water, but your correspondent
appears to show actual rule support for the proposition.<br>
Best regards, Allan</blockquote>
<p>So, according to the creator the attack is coming from the starting
position of the army.
<p>However, you can have also another view on this issue. If you
look to support as something that is passing a border, then the
support is not cut when the attack and support are clashing on
the same border. In case of a convoy, there is no such clash, so
it would be more logical to say that the support is
cut (choice b). Taking this border
point of view, it would be preferred that the choice is consistent
with issues <a href="#4.A.5">4.A.5</a> and <a href="#4.A.7">4.A.7</a>.
<p><i>Of course, I follow the interpretation of the creator.
Therefore, I prefer that the support is not cut (choice a).</i>

<a name="4.A.5"><h4>4.A.5. RETREAT WHEN DISLODGED BY CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>In a very rare situation (see test case <a href="#6.H.11">6.H.11</a> and
<a href="#6.H.12">6.H.12</a>) a unit can be dislodged by a convoy from
an adjacent place. Then the question arises whether the dislodged unit
may retreat to the starting place of the convoying army.
<p>The following two interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The unit may not retreat to the starting place of the attacker.</li>
<li>The unit may retreat to the starting place of the attacker when
the attack was with convoy.<br>
This is according to the DPTG.</li>
</ol>
<p>First note that if issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a> is played according
to choice c, then this issue is not relevant anymore. If it is played according to
choice b, then this is only an issue in the extremely theoretical situation
that both units attempted to move by convoy (see test case
<a href="#6.H.12">6.H.12</a>).
<p>All the rulebooks are ambiguous on this issue. They say first "A
dislodged unit must retreat to an adjacent province that it could
ordinarily move to if unopposed by other units.". According to this
sentence the unit may retreat to the starting place of the attacker
(choice b). However, in further explanation all the rulebooks say:
"The unit can not retreat to the province from which the attacker
came.". For the interpretation of the word 'from' see also issue
<a href="#4.A.4">4.A.4</a>. This sentence must be interpreted that
the particular retreat is not allowed.
<p><i>Since the rulebooks are ambiguous on this issue, I prefer
the option that seems most logical. Since the attacking unit did not
pass the border over which the retreating unit wants to go, it is
logical that this retreat is possible. So, I prefer choice b.</i>

<a name="4.A.6"><h4>4.A.6. CONVOY PATH SPECIFICATION</h4></a>
<p>Some popular automated judges require that a path is specified for
the army that convoys. For instance:
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A Yorkshire - Belgium
A Yorkshire - North Sea - Belgium
</pre>
<p>This way of writing convoys has never been part of the official rules
and is also not according to the DPTG. According to some sources this is
because the person that wrote the first automated judge, did not know
how to write an algorithm that searches for a convoy path and that since
then it has never been changed. This is a little bit strange story, since
writing an algorithm that searches for a path is much easier then writing
an adjudicator. On the other hand the quality of the first version of the
adjudicator might not have been that good.
<p>The advantage of path specification is that it might easier to code and
that "unwanted" convoys are not possible. There are four types of
"unwanted" convoys:
<p><ul>
<li>An unwanted multi-route convoy to prevent convoying.<br>
If a fleet is almost certainly dislodged, the player can anticipate
a convoy of the enemy and give its fleet the order to convoy the army
of the enemy. If convoys are disrupted when one of the routes is disrupted
(the 1971 rule, see issue <a href="#4.A.1">4.A.1</a>), the convoy of the
enemy will fail. See also test case <a href="#6.F.11">6.F.11</a>.</li>
<li>An unwanted multi-route convoy to take advantage of the paradox rule.<br>
If a support of a fleet on another fleet is almost certainly cut by a convoy,
the player can give the other fleet a convoy order to prevent dislodgement.
This is only possible with the 1971 and 1982 paradox rule (see issue
<a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>). See also test case <a href="#6.F.20">6.F.20</a>.</li>
<li>An unwanted convoy to an adjacent place.<br>
This can be for two different reasons. One to swap for getting a unit behind
enemy lines or just as joke (see test case <a href="#6.G.2">6.G.2</a>) or two
prevent a move to succeed. This only works when the dislodgement of the
fleet is anticipated. In such situation the player can
also anticipate a move of an army of the enemy and order the fleet to convoy that
army to its adjacent place. If kidnapping armies is possible (not possible
with the 1982 rulebook and the clarification of the 2000 rulebook, see issue
<a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>), the move of the army will fail. See also test
case <a href="#6.G.3">6.G.3</a> and <a href="#6.G.4">6.G.4</a>.</li>
<li>To let a convoy succeed that would otherwise fail.<br>
A situation is possible that a player is betrayed when a convoying
fleet is dislodged. In such case the player might want that the
convoy fails, because of a better defense position. The enemy can
prevent this by ordering an alternative convoy route. See also test
case <a href="#6.F.13">6.F.13</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>The first three unwanted convoys are not possible with the 2000 rulebook.
So, the argument of preventing unwanted convoys is hardly valid.
<p>This issue can be handled in the following ways:
<ol type=a>
<li>Path specifications are not allowed and if they are ordered then
they are ignored.</li>
<li>Path specifications are allowed but not required.</li>
<li>Path specifications are required. The convoy fails if the order
does not contain the path.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>If path specification is required in a face to face game, this
may lead to problems. Suppose that someone clearly intents to convoy,
but forgets the path. For instance, England orders York to Holland
with a fleet in the North Sea that is ordered to convoy. If path
specification is required, then the order from York to Holland without
path makes no sense. But, since we do a best effort to interpret the orders,
we may still decide that the army is convoyed. If we allow this, then
we get all issues related to multi-route convoying back. So, I do
not prefer that path specification is required in face to face games
(I have not seen any house rules for manually adjudicated games,
that require path specification). Since, I prefer that face to face
games are played as much as possible the same as postal and email
games, and since I prefer that is played according to rules
I prefer that path specifications are not required and ignored
(choice a). However, for compatibility reasons I can also live
when both are allowed (choice b) but only for automated judge
systems.</i>

<a name="4.A.7"><h4>4.A.7. AVOIDING A HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE TO BOUNCE A UNIT</h4></a>
<p>The rulebooks say that if a unit is dislodged, then it has no influence
on the area where the attacker came from. Of course, this is only significant
when the units move in opposite direction. However, when two units move in
opposite direction, they do not necessary be engaged in a head to head battle.
It is possible that one of the units convoys. The question arises, whether
the dislodged unit can still bounce a third unit. See also test case
<a href="#6.G.10">6.G.10</a>, <a href="#6.G.14">6.G.14</a> and
<a href="#6.G.15">6.G.15</a>.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>A dislodged unit has never effect on the area where the attacker departed from.<br>
This is the literal interpretation of the rulebook. It can be properly adjudicated,
but the adjudication is confusing (see also <a href="#5.B.6">5.B.6</a>).</li>
<li>A dislodged unit has only no effect on the area where the attacker departed from, when it
was engaged in a head to head battle (DPTG).<br>
This resolution is more natural, because before the unit was dislodged it
was already engaged in a fight with the third unit and bouncing it.
From the rulebook point of view, it can be defended by saying that
swapping two units with a convoy, is a special rule which makes an
exception to the other rules. This exception also includes the possibility
of bouncing a unit, even when it is dislodged.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>Although choice a is more according to the rulebook, I think choice
b is how it is intended. Therefore I prefer choice b. This choice is also
consistent with choice b of issue <a href="#4.A.5">4.A.5</a>, where we
really look what is passing the border, instead of looking where the unit
comes from.</i>

<a name="4.B"><h3>4.B. COASTAL ISSUES</h3></a>

<a name="4.B.1"><h4>4.B.1 OMITTED COAST SPECIFICATION IN MOVE ORDER WHEN TWO COASTS ARE POSSIBLE</h4></a>
<p>If a move order of a fleet to a multi-coast area does not contain a coast where the fleet can
move to both coasts, different adjudicators may react differently.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The move fails.<br>
This is according to all rulebooks and the DPTG.</li>
<li>A move is attempted to a default coast.<br>
Some adjudicators are implemented this way.</li>
</ol>
<p>The disadvantage of the default coast is, that there is no
standard for default coasts and there is no graphical notation to
show what the default coast on the map is.
<p><i>I prefer that the move fails (choice a), because of the disadvantages
of the default coast.</i>

<a name="4.B.2"><h4>4.B.2 OMITTED COAST SPECIFICATION IN MOVE ORDER WHEN ONE COAST IS POSSIBLE</h4></a>
<p>If a move order of a fleet to a multi-coast area does not contain a coast where the fleet can
only move to one coast, different adjudicators may react differently.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>A move is attempted to the only possible coast (DPTG).</li>
<li>A move is attempted to a default coast.<br>
Some adjudicators are implemented this way.</li>
<li>The move fails.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>As I said before I do not like the idea of a default coast.
I also do not see the need for specifying a coast when only one
coast is possible. Therefore I prefer that a move is attempted to
the only possible coast (choice a).</i>

<a name="4.B.3"><h4>4.B.3 MOVE ORDER TO IMPOSSIBLE COAST</h4></a>
<p>If a move order of a fleet to a multi-coast area does contain a coast but the
specified coast is not possible, different adjudicators may react differently.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The coast is ignored and a move is attempted to the possible coast.</li>
<li>The move fails.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>I do not like the idea of changing an unambiguous order. Therefore
I prefer that the move fails (choice b).</i>

<a name="4.B.4"><h4>4.B.4. COAST SPECIFICATION IN SUPPORT ORDER</h4></a>
<p>The rulebooks clearly specify that a fleet can support another fleet
to a coast which it can not reach (a fleet in Greece can support a
fleet from the Black Sea to the east coast of Bulgaria). However, it
is less clear whether the coast must be specified in the support order.
This is one of the most controversial issues. Although the situation
is rare because of the limited number of places on the board where it
can happen, it is not theoretically and it will happen once in a while.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>Coast specification is mandatory in support orders and must match.
A missing coast specification results in a failed support.<br>
You can interpret the rules this way, because the rule say that
a support order "must match".</li>
<li>Coast specification is mandatory in support orders and must match.
In case of a missing coast specification a default coast is taken.</li>
<li>Coast specification is mandatory in support orders and must match.
In case no coast is specified, it must be treated as a poorly written
order. That means that the support will not fail for this reason if
the moving fleet is of the same nationality or can only go to one coast.
This is also supported by a statement of the creator Allan Calhamer
(see rec.games.diplomacy, august 29th 2002):
<p><blockquote>
Stephen Agar wrote:<br><br>
Allan<br><br>
Could you spare the time to give your view on how to adjudicate the
following situations - as you can see they all depend on how you treat
the coast designations in each situation.<br><br>
Turkey: F Con-Bul(ec)<br>
Russia: A Rum S Turkish F Con-Bul(sc)<br>
Austria: A Bul Holds<br><br>
Turkey: F Con-Bul(ec)<br>
Russia: A Rum S Turkish F Con-Bul<br>
Austria: A Bul Holds<br><br>
Turkey: F Con-Bul(ec); A Rum S F Con-Bul<br>
Austria: A Bul Holds<br><br>
Many thanks.<br>
PS. The next issue of Armistice Day is in the post - hope you like the
cover!<br><br>
Regards<br><br>
Stephen Agar<br><br>
Dear Stephen: I would consider the supports in the first two cases no
good, since I think allies should be in evident agreement on the moves.
The support in the third case I would consider good.<br><br>
Best regards, Allan</blockquote></li>
<li>Coast specification is allowed, but not mandatory. If it is specified,
the coast must match, otherwise the support is to all coasts.</li>
<li>Coast specification is not possible in a support order. Any
specification of coast in a support order is ignored.<br>
This is according to the DPTG.  Some people argue that this is according to
the official rules. The 2000 rulebook says that a fleet that can move to a province having
multiple coasts can support a move into that province without regard to coasts. Given the
statement "without regard to coasts", it might make more sense for a support order to
succeed even if a coast is specified but doesn't match. However, you can also argue
that this rulebook statement refers to the ability that a support can be given to
all coasts, even when the unit can not go to the supported coast and that the statement
does not refer to the notation.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>I do agree with the concept of mister Calhamer that players should
be in evident agreement on the moves. Therefore, I do not like choice e.
However, mister Calhamer is a conceptual thinker and not a rule thinker.
In the research for this document I found some evidence that automated
judges changed the adjudication in favor of choice d after some complains.
If the conceptual right choice c of mister Calhamer is compared with the
practical choice d, the following two situations must be considered. The
first situation with choice c is that a person gives a support to another
player, but that support fails because the coast was missing. The second
situation is with choice d that a person gives a support to another player
without coast specification and the other player betrays and moves to
the not expected coast. Both situations are undesirable and must be avoided
if possible. However, I consider the first situation far more likely to
happen then the second situation. Furthermore in the second situation
the support giving player had still the opportunity to avoid the unexpected
move by specifying the coast (this is not completely true since the other
player could pressure the player to give support without coast, but this
is not very likely since that would be very suspicious). Finally, choice
d is easier for new players, because the issue does not need to be mentioned
and the adjudication is with or without coast specification more or less
what they expect. For this reason I consider choice d the most supportive
for the game and that is why I prefer that coasts may omitted, but must
match when they are specified (choice d).</i>

<a name="4.B.5"><h4>4.B.5. WRONG COAST OF ORDERED UNIT</h4></a>
<p>How should an order directed to a fleet on the north coast
be executed when the fleet is actually on the south coast?

<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The move fails.</li>
<li>Such coast specification is just ignored.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>I prefer that such garbage in the orders is just ignored (choice b).</i>

<a name="4.B.6"><h4>4.B.6 UNKNOWN COASTS OR IRRELEVANT COASTS</h4></a>
<p>How should an order be executed that contains an unknown coast,
such as Spain west coast or Brest east coast. And how should an
order be executed when the coast is just irrelevant, such as an
army movement to the north coast of Spain?

<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The move fails.</li>
<li>Such coast specification is just ignored.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>I prefer that such garbage in the orders is just ignored (choice b).</i>

<a name="4.B.7"><h4>4.B.7 COAST SPECIFICATION IN BUILD ORDER</h4></a>
<p>When a fleet is build in multi-coast area (St Petersburg), the coast must be specified.
When the player does not specify the coast, the
situation can be handled in different ways.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The build will fail.<br>
This is according to the rulebook</li>
<li>The fleet is build on a default coast.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>As said before, I do not like the idea of default coasts.
Therefore, I prefer that the build fails (choice a).</i>

<a name="4.C"><h3>4.C. UNIT DESIGNATION AND NATIONALITY ISSUES</h3></a>

<a name="4.C.1"><h4>4.C.1 MISSING UNIT DESIGNATION</h4></a>
<p>When the designation of the type of a unit (A or F) is omitted, the following
could be decided:
<ol type=a>
<li>The order is invalid (the unit can receive hold support).</li>
<li>The order is still valid.</li>
<li>The order is still valid unless there is another order with the
correct designation of the unit (the order with the missing designation
is ignored).<br>
The problem of this choice is that the other order might be unclear for
another reason.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>Since the order is not ambiguous, I prefer that the order is still
valid (choice b).</i>

<a name="4.C.2"><h4>4.C.2. WRONG UNIT DESIGNATION</h4></a>
<p>When the designation of the type of a unit (A or F) does not match with
the actual type of the unit, the following could be decided:
<ol type=a>
<li>The order is invalid (the unit can receive hold support).</li>
<li>The order is still valid.</li>
<li>The order is still valid unless there is another order with the
correct designation of the unit (the order with the wrong designation
is ignored).<br>
The problem of this choice is that the other order might be unclear for
another reason.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>I think a best effort should be made to interpret the order,
therefore I prefer that the order is still valid (choice b). This means that the
unit type designation is in fact ignored. You can argue whether the
unit type designation has any use. However, if other parts of the order
are unclear, the unit type designation might help.</i>

<a name="4.C.3"><h4>4.C.3. MISSING UNIT DESIGNATION IN BUILD ORDER</h4></a>
<p>A player might forget to specify whether it wants to build an
army or a fleet. Such situation can be handled in the following ways:
<ol type=a>
<li>The build fails always.</li>
<li>The build fails for coastal areas, but an army is build when the
build is ordered in a land area.</li>
<li>An army is build in a land area and a fleet is build when the build
is ordered in a coastal area and a coast is specified. When no coast is
specified, the build fails.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>I prefer that a best effort is made. Therefore I prefer that the
order only fails when the area is coastal area and the order did not
contain a coast (choice c).</i>

<a name="4.C.4"><h4>4.C.4. BUILDING A FLEET IN A LAND AREA</h4></a>
<p>A player might try to build a fleet in area that can not contain
fleets. Such situation can be handled in the following ways:
<ol type=a>
<li>The build fails always.</li>
<li>An army is build on the specified place.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>First of all, I do not consider such order ambiguous. Second,
if it has to be changed, there are alternatives. The player may want
a fleet on another place or the player may want to waive the
build instead. Since this can not be concluded based on the given
order, I prefer that the build fails (choice a).</i>

<a name="4.C.5"><h4>4.C.5. MISSING NATIONALITY IN SUPPORT ORDER</h4></a>
<p>When the designation of the nationality of supported or convoyed foreign unit is omitted,
the following could be decided:
<ol type=a>
<li>The order is invalid.</li>
<li>The order is still valid.</li>
<li>The order is still valid unless there is another order with the
correct designation of nationality (the order with the missing designation
is ignored).<br>
The problem of this choice is that the other order might be unclear for
another reason.</li>
</ol>
<p>Note that there are adjudicators that can not parse the nationality in
support orders.
<p><i>Specifying the nationality in support orders is a rule that is often
ignored. I prefer that the order is just valid (choice b).</i>

<a name="4.C.6"><h4>4.C.6. WRONG NATIONALITY IN SUPPORT ORDER</h4></a>
<p>When the designation of the nationality of supported or convoyed foreign unit is incorrect,
the following could be decided:
<ol type=a>
<li>The order is invalid.</li>
<li>The order is still valid.</li>
<li>The order is still valid unless there is another order with the
correct designation of nationality (the order with the incorrect designation is ignored).<br>
The problem of this choice is that the other order might be unclear for
another reason.</li>
</ol>
<p>Note that there are adjudicators that can not parse the nationality in
support orders.
<p><i>I think a best effort should be made. Therefore, the order should just
be valid (the second option). This means that the
nationality is in fact ignored (choice b). You can argue whether the nationality
has any use. However, if other parts of the order are unclear,
the nationality might help.</i>

<a name="4.D"><h3>4.D TOO MANY AND TOO FEW ORDERS</h3></a>

<a name="4.D.1"><h4>4.D.1 MULTIPLE ORDER SETS WITH DEFINED ORDER</h4></a>
<p>If a game is played by email or by post, the game master
(or automated judging system) may receive multiple order
sets. Of course, if there is a clear what the latest order set
is, then the latest order set replaces any previous
order sets. However, if the latest order set is incomplete,
it could be handled in the following two ways:
<ol type=a>
<li>All order sets are combined to one set of orders.</li>
<li>All order sets are combined to one set of orders, unless it
is clear that the latest order set replaces all earlier sets.</li>
<li>Only the latest order set is considered, unless it is clear
that earlier sets must still be taken into account.</li>
<li>Only the latest order set is considered.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>In principle this is something that should be handled
in the house rules. However, when it is not handled in the
house rules, then I think the interests of both players
and judge are best served when in principle a new set
replaces an old set and only earlier sets are taken into
account when it is clear from the order set (choice c).</i>

<a name="4.D.2"><h4>4.D.2. MULTIPLE ORDER SETS WITH UNDEFINED ORDER</h4></a>
<p>Also in face to face games strange things can happen.
When two sets of orders are submitted in a face to face
game, then it is probably not clear which order set is
the latest one. The following could be decided:
<ol type=a>
<li>All units hold.</li>
<li>All order sets are combined to one set.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>I think a best attempt should be made to interpret
the orders. Therefore, I prefer that all orders sets
are combined (choice b).</i>

<a name="4.D.3"><h4>4.D.3. MULTIPLE ORDERS TO THE SAME UNIT</h4></a>
<p>It might also occur that a player orders a unit twice or even more, with
at least two orders that are not the same (if the orders are the same, then it
should just follow that order). This situation is not covered by any rulebook
and only in house rules.
<p>First of all, it should be decided what should be treated as order.
This is discussed in issue <a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>. Any illegal order should be
ignored. That means that if a unit gets a legal and an illegal order,
then there are in fact no multiple orders and only the legal order should
be handled. This may sound theoretically, but this is exactly what can
happen when someone swaps two names in a support order.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The first order is used.</li>
<li>The last order is used.</li>
<li>The order is illegal and changed in a hold order (able
to receive a hold support)</li>
</ol>
<p>Note that this is only an issue when the two orders are in the same
order set. In case of multiple order sets see issue <a href="#4.D.1">4.D.1</a>
and <a href="#4.D.2">4.D.2</a>.
<p><i>A player can have many units (especially in Colonial). In a face to face
game it might not be that clear which order is first (if multiple papers
are used or when the player uses columns). Therefore, I prefer the last
interpretation (choice c). However, for an automatic adjudicator program an
other solution might fit better with the user interface.</i>

<a name="4.D.4"><h4>4.D.4. TOO MANY BUILD ORDERS</h4></a>
<p>It might occur that a player orders too many builds. The rulebooks
do not give a solution to this specific situation.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>All build orders are invalid.</li>
<li>The first legal build orders are used.</li>
<li>The last legal build orders are used.</li>
</ol>
<p>Note that this is not an issue when the build orders are in
different order sets. In case of multiple order sets see issue
<a href="#4.D.1">4.D.1</a> and <a href="#4.D.2">4.D.2</a>.
<p><i>I have taken part in a face to face game where this happened.
France ordered three builds in 1901 while he was allowed to build
only two units. If all builds were denied, then it would not only
ruin the game for the player of France, but also for all other
players. Therefore, I prefer that the first legal orders are used
(choice b). Although, in case of an automatic adjudicator, a other
solution might fit better with the user interface.</i>

<a name="4.D.5"><h4>4.D.5. MULTIPLE BUILD ORDERS FOR ONE AREA</h4></a>
<p>Each area can have only one unit. This makes an order for building
both fleet and army in one and the same area illegal.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>Both build orders fail.</li>
<li>The first build order is used.</li>
<li>The last build order is used.</li>
</ol>
<p>Note that this is not an issue when the build orders are in
different order sets. In case of multiple order sets see issue
<a href="#4.D.1">4.D.1</a> and <a href="#4.D.2">4.D.2</a>.
<p><i>Comparable to too many build orders, I prefer that
adjustments orders are just executed one by one. So, I prefer
that the first build order is used (choice b).</i>

<a name="4.D.6"><h4>4.D.6. TOO MANY DISBAND ORDERS</h4></a>
<p>Comparable with the situation that a user orders too many build
orders, a player can also order to many disband orders. The different
rulebooks do not give any answer how to handle such situation.
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>All disband orders are handled according to the civil disorder rules.</li>
<li>The first legal disband orders are used.</li>
<li>The last legal disband orders are used.</li>
</ol>
<p>Note that this is not an issue when the disband orders are in
different order sets. In case of multiple order sets see issue
<a href="#4.D.1">4.D.1</a> and <a href="#4.D.2">4.D.2</a>.

<p><i>I prefer that it is handled similar to the situation where too many
build orders are given. So, I prefer that the first legal disband orders are
used (choice b). Although, in case of an automatic adjudicator, a other
solution might fit better with the user interface.</i>

<a name="4.D.7"><h4>4.D.7. WAIVING BUILDS</h4></a>
<p>The 1971 and 1982 rulebooks are ambiguous about waiving
builds. Two interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>Waiving builds is allowed.<br>
This is according to the 2000 rulebook which explicitly specifies that
a build can be waived (page 18: "A country can decline to build a unit
that it is entitled to for whatever reason (usually a diplomatic one)").
</li>
<li>Waiving builds is not allowed.<br>
The disadvantage of not allowing to waive builds is that additional
rules are required when someone forgets to build</li>
</ol>
<p>Note that if the game is played by email or by post, it may
required that the build is explicitly waived. In this way the waiving
of builds can be distinguished from no orders received. This is not
an issue in face to face games.
<p><i>With the 2000 rulebook this is not really an issue anymore.
Allowing to waive builds is just a perfect rule. Therefore, I
prefer that builds can be waived (choice a).</i>

<a name="4.D.8"><h4>4.D.8. REMOVING A UNIT IN CIVIL DISORDER</h4></a>
<p>The rulebook specifies which unit must be removed when a country in
civil loses a supply center. However, the way it is described allows
multiple interpretations.
<p>In the 1971 and 1982 rulebooks, the distance of each unit to the
home supply centers must be calculated. The distance must be
calculated by "the shortest available route, including convoys".
This allows multiple interpretations. Must fleets be available
for convoying? And must convoys be calculated as one move?
<p>The 2000 rulebook is even more vague about this. The distance
must be calculated to the "country". The term 'home supply centers'
is not used. Taking the word 'country' literally means that also
some provinces without supply center must be taken into account
(for example, Apulia as part of Italy). Furthermore, information
how the distance should be calculated is also less clear then
the in the 1971 and 1982 rulebooks (the word 'convoy' is not used).
<p><i>I interpret the 2000 rule just as the 1971 and 1982 rule.
There was no reason to change this rule and the change in formulation
was probably an attempt to simplify the formulation, with the consequence
that the rule became just more vague. Taking country literally instead of
home supply centers has some severe drawbacks. First it means that
in some cases an unit has to be removed in a home supply center.
Second, on some alternative maps the ownership of areas is not
drawn. And finally, for automatic adjudicators it would require
that they know the ownership of every area. This is currently not
implemented and it will probably never be implemented for just the
civil disorder rule. I consider the 2000 rules on this issue such
a mess, that it is defendable decision to just take the rule from
the 1971 or 1982 rulebook.</i>
<p>The following interpretations of 'moves' are possible when
calculating the distance:
<ol type=a>
<li>Fleets and armies may only move regularly and convoys must be counted
as one move and there does not need to be a fleet.<br>
The disadvantage of this interpretation is that many areas get the same distance.</li>
<li>Fleets and armies may only move regularly and convoys must be counted
as one move, but the country in civil disorder
must have fleets to convoy the army.<br>
This interpretation introduces a new issue. Should the units be removed
one by one or should the distance of all units be calculated first?
This interpretation has also as disadvantage that units on islands may have
no distance at all.</li>
<li>Fleets and armies may only move regularly and convoys must be counted
as one move, but there must be fleets of any country to convoy the army.<br>
This interpretation has the same disadvantages of the previous interpretation.</li>
<li>Fleets may only move regularly, but armies may also move as a fleet (so, a
convoy is not counted as one move, but one plus the number of fleets involved).
This interpretation is according to the DPTG.<br>
The disadvantage of this interpretation is that it is difficult to match with
literal text of the 1971 and 1982 rulebook that uses the word 'convoy',
since convoys are a single move in a main phase.</li>
<li>The distance is calculated the same for fleets and armies were both units
have the abilities of each other. So, fleets can use land areas (coasts are
irrelevant) and armies can use sea areas.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>First it must be realized that it is sufficient to have an
arbitrary result as long as it is a precise defined result. I think
that choice a, b and c, in this respect, do not really qualify for
this purpose. I think that the intent of the rule was choice d (as the
DPTG interpretation) and therefore I prefer choice d. That means that
the distance of fleets are calculated by only taking regularly moves,
while armies may also move as a fleet.</i>
<p>There is also a complete different way of removing a unit (this
is used in some house rules, but is not supported by any rulebook):
<ol type=a start=6>
<li number=4>If a power is required to remove a unit and no valid order is received, the least
recently produced unit that is not at a supply center will be disbanded. This is
the first one listed on the reports which will be the one most likely to be furthest
away from a home supply center.<br>
The disadvantage of this rule is that a decision has to be made that is not only
based on the situation on the board and the orders, but also the history of
the game. In the rulebook there is no obligation to keep track of history.
Furthermore, when the least recently produced unit was build together with another
unit, then it might be difficult to decide which of the units is the least
recently produced unit, since build orders are not always written down
(especially when other countries may not build). So, in a face to face game
there is no guarantee that this rule can be executed properly.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>I do not prefer this alternative, because of the problems to apply this rule
in face to face games.</i>
<p>If two distances are the same, then the alphabetical order of the areas
becomes significant. This raises the issue of the language that should be used.
For instance, a dispute may arise when a non-English board is used, but
English versions of conference maps and rules were downloaded and printed
from the internet.
<p><i>I prefer that the English language is used by default. However,
if the game is played face to face with one or more physical boards
(conference maps and rulebooks not taken into account) and those boards
are all in the same language, then I prefer that the language of
those boards are used. In such case, a list of English names might not
be available. If the game is not played face to face and played completely
in an other language then English, then I still prefer that the English
language is used. A computer program might have an user interface without
any single English word, internally it still may use English names, for
instance in a communication protocol. To avoid trouble here, the
default language is English and the exception is only with face to
face games. Furthermore, in a game that is not face to face, the
availability of a list with English names is probably not an issue.</i>
<p>What to do with the alphabetical order when names contain special
characters such as spaces, dots and hyphens?
<p><i>This is probably never an issue. But if so, then I prefer that
any special characters such as spaces, dots and hyphens are removed from
the name, before determining the alphabetical order.</i>
<p>Finally, it should be mentioned that the full names should be used
in determining the alphabetical order and not the abbreviations.

<a name="4.D.9"><h4>4.D.9. RECEIVING HOLD SUPPORT IN CIVIL DISORDER</h4></a>
<p>When a country is in civil disorder, all its units hold and do
not support each other. But what should happen when an other
country supports the hold of one of the units?
<p>The following interpretations are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>The support fails.<br>
This means that there is a difference between an unordered unit and
a unit of a country in civil disorder. This has as consequence that
a new issue is introduced. When is a country exactly in civil disorder?
In a face to face game this might not be that clear!</li>
<li>The support succeeds.<br>
You may argue that this is just according to the official rules. Since a unit that
is not ordered to move may receive support to hold.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>I see no reason for introducing new issues for this rather insignificant
issue. Therefore, I prefer that the support succeeds (choice b). Also, in a face to face
game, a support to hold the armies, as an act of good will, might end the civil
disorder.</i>

<a name="4.E"><h3>4.E. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES</h3></a>

<a name="4.E.1"><h4>4.E.1 ILLEGAL ORDERS</h4></a>

<p>"legal" is one of the most controversial terms in
the rules of Diplomacy. Of course, the same counts for
the opposite "illegal". This term has two aspects. First
its use and consequences and second the definition which
orders are legal and which are not. Both aspects can be
disputed. About the consequences the 2000 rulebook says
on page 3 (rather similar to the other rulebooks):<br><br>
<blockquote>A legal order must be followed. An order written
by mistake, if legal, must be followed. An "illegal"
or ambiguous order or an order that is judged to be
unsuccessful is not followed. A unit that is given
an illegal order (or given no order) must stand in
place. (The unit holds.)</blockquote>
<p>In this document this is interpreted that to determine
whether an order is legal or not is the first step
in processing the orders. Any legal orders are added
to the set of orders to be adjudicated, while the
remaining is thrown away. That means that illegal
orders do not have influence whatsoever.
<p>This is considered a workable and sensible usage
of the term 'legal', however some other documents
do not use it this way. For instance, in the DPTG
illegal orders may still have some effect (an
illegal move can not be supported in a hold). It
should be realized that with such usage the term
'legal' does not have much meaning other than that
the order unconditionally fails.
<p>Although it is now clear how the word 'legal'
is used in this document, which orders are legal
or not, must still be defined. The most
significant question of this issue is, whether an impossible
move (for instance A Moscow - York), can receive support to
hold. Some argue that it is still a move and therefore the
unit can not receive hold support. Other people say that it
is an illegal order and those should be treated as a hold.
This issue is not only about interpreting the orders, but
it has a real consequence for the possibilities
of the players. If impossible orders can receive hold
support, then it means that a holding unit can not refuse
hold support (by ordering an impossible move). This can lead
to some interesting tactical situations. See for instance the
Diplomatic Pouch, Winter 1995 Adjustments, Library of Diplomacy
Tactics, Tactics Problems, Problem 3. However, it should be
realized that the situation in the given problem is rather
theoretical.
<p>The legality of an order has also minor consequences.
For instance, in case an order receives a legal and a illegal
order. The illegal order must be ignored, so there is no
problem by just accepting only the legal order (see also
issues <a href="#4.D.3">4.D.3</a> and <a href="#4.D.4">4.D.4</a>
and test case <a href="#6.D.28">6.D.28</a>).
<p>Finally, the legality of orders is very important in "no-press games",
since illegal orders will be shown as hold orders to other players
while legal attempts to move will be shown as they are ordered.
<p>For listing the possible interpretations of 'legal', another
term must be introduced. This is the concept of 'valid' orders.
A valid order is an order for which a successful attempt can
be executed, given all the other orders. More specific, non-matching
support are invalid. Non-matching convoy orders or convoy orders
that are not part of an ordered convoy route are also invalid.
Even so, if a move order requires a convoy and no convoy path is
ordered, then the move order is invalid. So, it is quite normal that during the
game lot of orders turn out to be invalid. This terminology is consistent
with the rulebooks. The 2000 rulebook uses the words 'valid' and
'invalid' first on page 7 in relation with the matching of orders.
<p>Note, that in the definition of 'valid' the word 'attempt' is
used. It is not necessary that the order actually succeeds or
can succeed. If Portugal is occupied by an army and the Mid-Atlantic
Ocean is empty, then a move order from Spain to Portugal can never
succeed. However, that move order is perfectly valid.
<p>The following interpretations of 'legality' are possible:
<ol type=a>
<li>Every order in the right format of an order must be treated as a legal
order. Even when the areas of the order are not places on the map (DPTG,
although the DPTG uses the word 'legal' differently).</li>
<li>All orders that are in the right format and uses only valid
places on the map, are legal.<br>
So, the names of the sectors are taken into account, but not
the geography or the current situation on the board. This interpretation
is supported by the "THE GAMER'S
GUIDE TO DIPLOMACY", 2nd edition, march 1979 (clarifications of
the 1971 rules). Rod Walker wrote in the "QUESTIONS & ANSWERS"
section:<br><br>
<blockquote>5. Q: What if you get these orders:<br><br>
GER: A Mun-Mos, A Ruh S A Mun.<br>
RUS: A Sil-Mun, A Boh S A Sil-Mun.<br><br>
Does the Russian attack succeed?<br><br>
A: Yes. Even though the German order was probably meant as a joke, it
must be taken seriously, no matter how improbable. It's an order to
move and a unit so ordered can't be supported in place -- so A Mun is
dislodged.<br><br>
Every so often a player will write a humorous or impossible order for
a unit which is supposed to be holding. The question is, do you treat
the order as an order to move? My inclination is to draw the line this
way: an order to move to any space on the board, no matter how
impossible, is an order to move within the meaning of Rule IX.6. This
would include such orders as A Mun-Mos, A Mun-Switzerland, A Hol-Nth,
F Pie-Ven, F StP(nc)-Mos, and so on. <br><br>
On the other hand, if the unit is ordered to do some other thing, not
involving a space on the board, I regard it as being ordered to hold,
and it may be supported in place. Such orders might be: A Mun
whistles "Dixie", A Mun-Oz, A Mun loot and pillage, A Mun-Mars (but
not A Mun-Mar), and so on. See Spring 1914 in the Sample Game
(Section IV) for another example.<br><br>
If you wish to avoid such hair-splitting you can always prohibit
nonsense orders, but that will take some of the fun out of the
game.</blockquote></li>
<li>Only orders that can be valid in a particular game situation (not
necessarily the current situation) must be treated as legal
orders.<br>
So, the geography of the map is taken into account, but
not the current situation on the board. This means that a
move from York to Holland must treated as a legal move,
even when there is no fleet in the North Sea. This has
as consequence that armies in land areas can not refuse
hold support by doing an impossible move. However, armies in
coastal areas can almost always refuse support with
certainty by ordering a move that requires a convoy for
which the fleets are currently not in position. This
interpretation lead to a few tricky situations. It should
be realized that a fleet can't convoy and support at
the same time. For instance, an order to a fleet in the
Black Sea to support an army from Rumania to Armenia,
can never be valid and is illegal with this choice
(see test case <a href="#6.D.31">6.D.31</a>). Furthermore,
a move order for a fleet that does not contain a required
coast specification (if no default coasts are used,
see issue <a href="#4.B.1">4.B.1</a>), can never be valid
and is illegal. Therefore, such fleet can receive hold support
(see test <a href="#6.D.30">6.D.30</a>). Finally, when an
army wants to convoy to an adjacent place with a foreign
fleet and choice d has taken for issue
<a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>, then the intent to convoy
can't be expressed by ordering another fleet to do the
convoy. If that convoy order can't be valid, then it
is illegal and not capable to express the intent
(see test case <a href="#6.G.7">6.G.7</a>).</li>
<li>Only orders that can be valid in the current situation
are legal.
<br>So, not only the geography of the map is taken into
consideration, but also the current situation of the board.
This means that a move from York to Holland is only a legal
order when the North Sea is occupied by a fleet. The same
tricky situations as in the previous interpretation exist.
This interpretation has as consequence that a hold support
can not easily be avoided for any unit. This is in line with
the 2000 rulebook. On page 7: "Support can be given without
consent and cannot be refused!". Although, maybe the writer
meant that when the orders are made public, players can not
choose which supports they want and which they don't want.</li>
</ol>
<p>Interpretation a has as disadvantage that almost every sentence
that contains a hyphen must be treated as a legal order. For the
implementation of a computer program this is a rather undesirable rule.
<p>Interpretations a and b have as disadvantage that in fact
three types of orders are distinguished. Legal orders that can be
valid, illegal orders that are ignored completely and semi-legal
orders that can't be valid but can still have some effect. This
division in three types introduces an additional complexity in
the settling of some disputes. For instance, in the DPTG, the group
of semi-legal orders are called 'illegal'. This makes it unclear
whether a unit that is ordered to move to the place it already
stands in, can receive a hold support.
<p>A disadvantage of interpretations a, b and c is that
an user interface of a computer program may only allow the selection
of orders that can be valid. If support can be refused by doing an impossible
move, then such user interface should provide a feature to also
enter an impossible move, because otherwise the player would be
restricted in it is possibilities. This would be an awkward feature,
for a rather insignificant issue.
<p>The disadvantage of interpretation c and d is that it requires
significantly additional coding when implementing a computer
program for Diplomacy.
<p><i>I consider it unimportant whether a unit can refuse
a support or not. The situations where this is significant are
extremely rare. Given the other arguments and the text of the
2000 rulebook I prefer option d. So, only orders that can
be valid in the current situation are legal.</i>

<a name="4.E.2"><h4>4.E.2. POORLY WRITTEN ORDERS</h4></a>
<p>Something that certainly will happen is that someone writes
a poorly written order. The 1971 and 1982 rulebook say (page 3):
"A badly written order, which nevertheless can have only one
meaning, must be followed". The 2000 rulebook uses only a
different term and formulation: "A poorly written order
that has only one meaning must be followed".
<p>First of all, it should be realized that some orders
are just ambiguous:<br>
<pre>Example 1:
A Bur - Pir
</pre>
In this example it is not clear whether the player wanted
to go to Paris or Picardy. Therefore, the army in Burgundy
should hold.
<p>However, according to the rules, small spelling mistakes
must be accepted. If someone writes the following order:<br>
<pre>Example 2:
A Burgundy - Pariz
</pre>
No human judge would reject this order, because of the misspelling
of 'Paris'.
<p>On the other hand, unambiguous impossible orders are
never changed:<br>
<pre>Example 3:
Austria:
Build F Tyr
</pre>
Although 'Tyr' is close to 'Tri' and Austria maybe meant to
build a fleet in Triest, this order must fail, because 'Tyr'
is the correct abbreviation of 'Tyrolia'.
The order to build in Tyrolia is not changed in a build in Triest.
Of course, for new players some exceptions can be made.
<p>Also, orders are never interpreted by looking to the orders
of another country:<br>
<pre>Example 4:
England:
A Bre S A Bur - Par

France
A Bur - Pir
</pre>
The order of England can not clarify the order of France. Even for
new players it is maybe better not to allow this.
<p>Until now it was clear how the orders should be treated,
however there is gray area where it is disputable whether
an order should be accepted or rejected.
One could choose one of the following principles when
interpreting orders.
<ol type=a>
<li>No knowledge of the rules of Diplomacy should be used to
interpret the orders. In practice this means that only small
spelling mistakes are accepted and maybe some other small
mistakes.</li>
<li>Each single order is interpreted keeping in mind that the
player only wanted to write possible orders (with possible is
meant the same as 'legal' in issue <a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>
choice d).
<br>This means that the following orders will not be rejected:<br>
<pre>Example 5:
F Rum - Bu.
</pre>
Since a fleet can not go to Budapest, this would be allowed. A move
to the east coast of Bulgaria is attempted.<br>
<pre>Example 6:
A Gre S A Ser - Bu.
</pre>
Since Greece can not support a move to Budapest, this order must be
interpreted as a move support from Serbia to Bulgaria.
</li>
<li>Each set of orders is interpreted keeping in mind that the
player only wanted to write a full set of possible orders.<br>
The following set of orders would be rejected in the previous
choice, but are now accepted:<br>
<pre>Example 7:
A Par S F Pir - Bre
A Pir - Bre
</pre>
'Pir' can be interpreted as 'Picardy' or 'Paris', but since there
is already an order for Paris, 'Pir' must be interpreted as 'Picardy'.
So, the army in Picardy receives an order to move to Brest.
</li>
<li>Each set of orders is interpreted keeping in mind that the
player only wanted to write a full set of possible and matching
orders. This would result that the following set of orders
would not be rejected anymore:
<pre>Example 8:
A Ser - Bu
A Gre S A Ser - Bu
</pre>
The order for the army in Greece must be interpreted as a move support
from Serbia to Bulgaria, since a support to Budapest is not possible.
Since, in this choice we assume that the player only wants to write
matching orders, the order of Serbia is clarified by the order for
Greece and must be interpreted as a move to Bulgaria.
</li>
</ol>

<p><i>I prefer that a best effort is made to interpret the order. So,
I prefer the last interpretation (choice d).</i>
<p>Even with the above guidance, some orders are still disputable:<br>
<pre>Example 9:
F Rum - Bud(ec).
</pre>
Some people may reject this order, since 'Bud' is unambiguous and
unambiguous orders are not changed. Other people would argue that the
fact that a fleet can not go to Budapest, combined with the fact that
the coast specification does only apply for Budapest, this order must
be interpreted as a move to Bulgaria. The decision is for the judge
or in case when there is no judge, in the mercy of the other players.

<a name="4.E.3"><h4>4.E.3. IMPLICIT ORDERS</h4></a>
An implicit order is an order that is deduced from a support order or
convoy order. For instance, when Germany orders its army in Ruhr to
support a move from Kiel to Holland, then the move order from Kiel
to Holland can be deduced as implicit order. It can be decided that:
<p><ol type=a>
<li>Implicit orders are allowed.<br>
Note that an explicit order takes precedence over an implicit order. And
a implicit order can never be deduced from orders from another player.</li>
<li>Implicit orders are not allowed.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>I think that allowing implicit orders encourages incomplete order sets and
that this will lead to more problems and errors. Therefore, I prefer that implicit
orders are not allowed (choice b).</i>

<a name="4.E.4"><h4>4.E.4. PERPETUAL ORDERS</h4></a>
<p>When a player wants to quit the game, he maybe wants to give 'Perpetual Orders'.
That are orders that will be repeated every turn. For instance, when Italy has still
two armies in Portugal and Spain, he may want to give the order that they will
mutual support each other as long as it is possible. It can be decided that:
<p><ol type=a>
<li>Perpetual orders are allowed.</li>
<li>Perpetual orders are not allowed.<br>
Since the rulebook contains special rules for a country in civil disorder,
it can be argued that perpetual are not allowed according to the rules.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>Although I do not really object against perpetual orders, I think allowing
perpetual orders should be decided before the game is started or all players
should agree during the game. If it was not explicitly allowed and a player
wants to give perpetual orders and another players opposes, then I prefer that
it is not allowed (choice b).</i>

<a name="4.E.5"><h4>4.E.5. PROXY ORDERS</h4></a>
<p>A 'Proxy Order' is an order that one does not order a specific unit
by oneself, but that another specific player may give the actual order to
the unit. I can be decided that:
<p><ol type=a>
<li>Proxy orders are allowed, where the player should notify the judge
that it wants to proxy a unit. This notification is before the
submission of the orders and the player that receives the proxy
has knowledge about it.<br>
This type of proxy order, does really change the game. In this way
a player can get certainty about the order of a foreign unit, while part
of the game is that players have never full certainty about the
orders of other players.</li>
<li>Proxy orders are allowed where a proxy order is given as part
of the normal order set.<br>
This type of proxy orders may look as a rather harmless way of speeding
up the negotiations (and therefore the game). However, it is not that
simple. Without proxy orders, a player will never give an order that
is not in his or her own interest. With proxy orders, the player can be
betrayed and his own unit can be moved out of position. See also the
remark from the creator of the game, Allan Calhamer, on issue
<a href="#4.B.4">4.B.4</a> "I think allies should be in evident agreement
of the moves." One could argue that in case there is no full trust,
one should not give a proxy order. Again, it is not that simple. One
player could demand from another player a proxy order and threaten
that any other order would be interpreted as a sign of distrust. If proxy
orders are not allowed, this can not happen. As you can see, this
is an excellent example how procedures can have effect on politics.
For this reason, you can not sell your own vote in an election, although
it is your own vote. Furthermore, for this reason the law does not
allow that a president or minister delegates certain powers.
<li>Proxy orders are not allowed.</li>
</ol>
<p><i>A player that proposes to allow proxy orders, during the game,
may have a complex diplomatic plan. Therefore, I think proxy orders
should only be allowed when this has been decided before the game
started. Since, proxy orders are not according to mechanics of
order writing as described in the rulebook, they should not be
allowed by default (choice c).</i>

<a name="4.E.6"><h4>4.E.6 FLYING DUTCHMAN</h4></a>
<p>A 'Flying Dutchman' is a unit on the board that is illegal. This can be due to
an adjudication error or cheating. Since it is not possible to replay previous
rounds, the situation has to be corrected on the board. There are numerous ways
to handle this situation (for instance, just play until the next adjustment turn).
<p>Allan Calhamer wrote on this issue (in Diplomania, no. 12, August 1966, a copy
can be found on 'www.diplomacy-archive.com'):
<p><blockquote>
A variety of rough-and-ready tactics were developed at this time. One was the
"Flying Dutchman", which consisted in playing with a piece to which
you were not entitled. It was ruled that this practice was legal so
long as it was a deception; i.e., any player had a right to demand
restoration of the true position, but if moves had intervened,
they could not be taken back. It was never clear what the rights
were if the deception was discovered during a move.
</blockquote>
<p><i>I prefer that the unit is removed immediately according to the
following rules:
<ul>
<li>If the Flying Dutchman was introduced by a misadjudication of the last orders,
then the last orders should be readjudicated. For instance, if the last orders
contained too many build orders, the extra build order should be handled as in issue
<a href="#4.D.8">4.D.8</a>.</li>
<li>If the Flying Dutchman was not introduced by the last adjudication, but
the specific unit that is the Flying Dutchman can still be identified (taking previous
turns into account), that unit should be removed.</li>
<li>If a single unit can not be identified as the Flying Dutchman, the civil
disorder rules should be applied on all the units that could be the Flying
Dutchman.</li>
<li>The principle that an adjudication becomes irreversible when new orders
are made public should still be followed. That means that if a Flying Dutchman
becomes legal, then no correction should be made. However, if the Flying Dutchman
is detected in the adjustment phase, before the adjustment orders are made public
and the new number of supply centers would make the Flying Dutchman legal, then
the Flying Dutchman should still be removed. The player may build another unit
instead.
</ul>
</i>

<a name="5"><h3>5. THE PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION</h3></a>
<p><i><b>This chapter is outdated. For better information about making
an adjudicator, see the article "The Math of Adjudication" of the
Diplomatic Pouch, Spring 2009 Movement. In a bigger update of the DATC
this chapter will be rewritten towards that article.</b></i>
<p>Writing a Diplomacy adjudicator program may look not more difficult
than writing a program that checks the moves of a chess game. However,
the contrary is true. A Diplomacy adjudicator that passes all test cases
as described in this document contains many small and difficult details.
<p>To help with writing an adjudicator program or just with the manual
adjudication, the adjudication of Diplomacy is analyzed here. The first
step in understanding the adjudication is to understand the principle
that a set of orders leads to a set of decisions to be made. One order
may lead to multiple decisions to made. For instance, when a unit is
ordered to move, it can be decided that the move fails, but when the move
uses a convoy, then it has also to be decided whether the unit has any
influence on the area where it was ordered to move.
<p>The second step is to understand that the decisions depend on each other.
Certain decisions can only be made when other decisions are made first. For
instance, when the units are ordered to follow each other in a move, then
the decision of the unit moves at the end depends on the move decision of
the unit at the front.
<p>In the final step an algorithm is constructed. This algorithm is based
on the decisions and respects their dependencies. In some other descriptions,
such as the DPTG, the notion of "decision" is not described and the algorithm
is described directly. This has as disadvantage that it gives no understanding
of adjudication and why the algorithm is constructed as it is. Furthermore,
with such description it is rather hard to look to alternative algorithms.
We will see that there are at least two ways to tackle the problem of an
adjudication program.
<p>Note that in the adjudication description some sanity checks are left out.
For example a test whether a support order matches with the order of the unit
it supports. These are covered by the test cases and are not relevant for the
understanding of the process of adjudication.

<a name="5.A"><h3>5.A. OVERVIEW OF ADJUDICATION DECISIONS</h3></a>
<p>There are eight different types of decisions. Each type of decisions
is given a name, to refer easily to that decision type. To distinguish
the decision type of the other text, the name is given in CAPITALS.
<p>The first three decisions are directly related to the success or failure
of an order:
<ul>
<li>MOVE<br>
Decision will result in 'moves' or 'fails'.</li>
<li>SUPPORT<br>
Decision will result in 'given' or 'cut'.</li>
<li>DISLODGE<br>
Decision will result in 'sustains' or 'dislodged'.</li>
</ul>
<p><pre>
Example:
Italy:
A Tyrolia - Trieste
A Venice Supports A Tyrolia - Trieste

Austria:
F Trieste Hold
</pre>
<p>At the end of adjudication, the MOVE decision of Tyrolia is 'moves',
the SUPPORT decision of Venice is 'given' and the DISLODGE decision of
the army in Trieste is 'dislodged'.
<p>When a unit tries to dislodge another unit, then the strength of
the move must be calculated and if that strength is larger than the
hold strength of the other unit, then the move of the unit succeeds.
So, the following two decision types are needed:
<ul>
<li>ATTACK STRENGTH<br>
For each unit ordered to move, the strength to attack. A decision
that results in a value equal or greater than zero.</li>
<li>HOLD STRENGTH<br>
For each area on the board the strength to prevent that other
units move to that area. A decision that results in a value equal
or greater than zero.
</ul>
<p>Both ATTACK STRENGTH and HOLD STRENGTH are numerical decisions,
because the result of the decision is a number.
<p>In the previous example the ATTACK STRENGTH of the army in Tyrolia
is two, while the HOLD STRENGTH of the army in Trieste is one.
<p>A unit can not dislodge a unit of the same player. Also supports
to a foreign unit can not be used to dislodge an own unit. However,
these supports can be used to prevent that another unit enters the
area. This strength can be greater than ATTACK STRENGTH and must
also be calculated:
<ul>
<li>PREVENT STRENGTH<br>
A numerical decision for each unit ordered to move. It is the
strength to prevent other units to move to the area where it is
ordered to move. A decision that results in a value equal or
greater than zero.</li>
</ul>
<p><pre>
Example:
Austria:
A Vienna - Tyrolia
A Tyrolia - Munich
A Trieste Supports A Vienna - Tyrolia

Germany:
A Munich Supports A Venice - Tyrolia
A Venice - Tyrolia
</pre>
<p>The ATTACK STRENGTH of the army in Vienna is zero, because
it can not dislodge its own unit in Tyrolia. However, the
PREVENT STRENGTH of the army in Vienna is two, which prevents
that the move of the German army in Venice with an
ATTACK STRENGTH of two succeeds.
<p>When a unit is dislodged in a head to head battle, then the
unit has no effect anymore on the area it was ordered to move.
This means that the PREVENT STRENGTH is zero. However, it is
still required to calculate the strength that prevents the
opposite unit in the head to head battle to move. This value
can be greater than ATTACK STRENGTH since all support has to
be calculated. Therefore a separate numerical decision is
necessary:
<ul>
<li>DEFEND STRENGTH<br>
For each unit ordered to move in a head to head battle, the
strength to defend its own area from the other unit of the
head to head battle to enter. A decision that results in a
value equal or greater than zero.</li>
</ul>
<p><pre>
Example:
France:
A Belgium Supports A Burgundy - Ruhr
A Holland Supports A Burgundy - Ruhr
A Burgundy - Ruhr
A Munich Supports A Ruhr - Burgundy
A Marseilles - Burgundy

Germany:
A Ruhr - Burgundy
</pre>
<p>In this example the French army in Munich supports the move
of the German army in Ruhr instead of the French army in Burgundy.
This makes that the ATTACK STRENGTH, the PREVENT STRENGTH and
the DEFEND STRENGTH of the German army in Ruhr are all different.
The ATTACK STRENGTH is one, because the French support should not
be counted for the attack. The PREVENT STRENGTH is zero, because
it is dislodged by the French army in Burgundy and therefore it
can not prevent the army in Marseilles to go to Burgundy. However,
the DEFEND STRENGTH contains all supports and is therefore two.
Still this DEFEND STRENGTH is insufficient in the head to head
battle, since the French army in Burgundy has an ATTACK STRENGTH
of three.
<p>It is important to understand the difference between
PREVENT STRENGTH and DEFEND STRENGTH. In some algorithms this
is calculated by the same routine. The returned strength of such
routine depends on the moment in the adjudication process.
However, in this analysis decisions are defined independent from
the moment in the adjudication process and therefore these two
strengths needs to be distinguished.
<p>Finally, when an army is ordered to move and the move will
be convoyed, it has to be decided whether the convoy will succeed:
<ul>
<li>PATH<br>
For each unit ordered to move, the decision whether there is a
path from the source to the destination. This decision will
result in 'path' or 'no path'. When the move is without any
convoy, the decision always results in 'path'. </li>
</ul>
<p><pre>
Example:
England:
A Yorkshire - Belgium
F North Sea Convoys A Yorkshire - Belgium

Germany:
F Holland Supports F Denmark - North Sea
F Denmark - North Sea
</pre>
<p>The fleet in the North Sea is dislodged, therefore the
PATH decision of the Yorkshire order is 'no path'. The PATH
decisions of non-convoying units are always 'path'. In this
case the PATH decisions of the moving fleet in Denmark is 'path'.

<a name="5.B"><h3>5.B. PRECISE DESCRIPTION OF MAKING DECISIONS</h3></a>
<p>Before the description of how the different decisions must
precisely be made, the notion of 'undecided' must be introduced.
In the examples of the previous section the final result of
decisions were given. But during the adjudication, decisions
are made one by one and it must be possible to distinguish
between decisions that are already made and decisions that
are not made yet. This is simply achieved by introducing an
'undecided' status for the decisions that have two possible
outcomes. So, a MOVE decision can have the status 'moves',
'fails' or 'undecided'. The decisions SUPPORT, DISLODGE and
PATH decisions can also have the status 'undecided'. For the
numerical decisions two values are administrated. The minimum
values and the maximum values. The final result will be
somewhere in the interval between the minimum and maximum
value. During adjudication this interval will become smaller.
The minimum values can only increase, while the maximum can
only decrease. When the minimum and maximum value of a
decision become equal, then the decision is fully made.
<p>Initially all numerical decisions have a minimum value
of zero and a maximum value of infinity. The remaining
decisions are initially 'undecided'.

<a name="5.B.1"><h4>5.B.1. MOVE DECISION</h4></a>
<p><dl><dt>A MOVE decision of a unit ordered to move results in 'moves' when:
<dd>The minimum of the ATTACK STRENGTH is larger
than the maximum of the DEFEND STRENGTH of the opposing unit in case
of a head to head battle or otherwise larger than the maximum of the
HOLD STRENGTH of the attacked area. And in all cases the minimum of the
ATTACK STRENGTH is larger than the maximum of the PREVENT STRENGTH
of all of the units moving to the same area.
<dt>A MOVE decision of a unit ordered to move results in 'fails' when:
<dd>The maximum of the ATTACK STRENGTH is smaller than or equal
to the minimum of the DEFEND STRENGTH of the opposing unit in case
of a head to head battle or otherwise smaller than or equal to the
minimum of the HOLD STRENGTH of the attacked area. Or the maximum
of the ATTACK STRENGTH is smaller than or equal to the minimum of
the PREVENT STRENGTH of at least one of the units moving to the same
area.
<dt>In all other cases a MOVE decision of a unit ordered to move
remains 'undecided'.
</dl>
<p>This MOVE decision has only one 'fails' result. For proper
reporting of the adjudication result to the players, more
information might be appropriate. For instance, if a move fails
due to a move of another unit to the same area, this could be
reported as 'bounce'. Also the exact bouncing unit might be
listed in the report. This can be implemented by introducing
different 'fails' as result of the MOVE decision result. Or
this information could be part of the 'fails' result. Anyway,
these ways of failure should be treated the same in other
parts of the adjudication.

<a name="5.B.2"><h4>5.B.2. SUPPORT DECISION</h4></a>
<p><dl><dt>A SUPPORT decision of a unit ordered to
support results in 'given' when:
<dd>All units ordered to move to the area of the supporting
unit have a maximum ATTACK STRENGTH decision with value zero.
If the support order is a move support, then the unit that
is on the area where the move is directed, should not be
taken into account. Furthermore, the SUPPORT decision can
only be 'given' when the DISLODGE decision of the unit has
status 'sustains' (dislodge rule).
<dt>A SUPPORT decision of a unit ordered to support results
in 'cut' when:
<dd>At least one of the units ordered to move to the area
of the supporting unit has a minimum ATTACK STRENGTH of one
or more. Again, if the support order is a move support, then
the unit that is on the area where the move is directed,
should not be taken into account. Finally, the SUPPORT
decisions also results in 'cut' when the DISLODGE decision
of the has status 'dislodged' (dislodge rule).
<dt>In all other cases a SUPPORT decision of a unit ordered
to support remains 'undecided'.
</dl>

<a name="5.B.3"><h4>5.B.3. DISLODGE DECISION</h4></a>
<p><dl><dt>A DISLODGE decision of a unit results in 'sustains'
when:
<dd>The unit is ordered to move and the MOVE decision has status
'moves'. Or when all units that has ordered to move to the
area of the unit have a MOVE decision with status 'fails'.
<dt>A DISLODGE decision of a unit results in 'dislodged' when:
<dd>There is a unit with a move order to the area of the unit,
for which the MOVE decision has status 'moves' and in case the
unit (of the DISLODGE decision) was ordered to move has a MOVE
decision with status 'fails'.
<dt>In all other cases a DISLODGE decision of a unit remains
'undecided'.
</dl>

<a name="5.B.4"><h4>5.B.4. ATTACK STRENGTH DECISION</h4></a>
<p><dl><dt>The minimum of a ATTACK STRENGTH decision of a
unit ordered to move must be calculated as follows:
<dd>In case the PATH decision of the unit is 'no path'
or 'undecided' then the minimum of the ATTACK STRENGTH is zero.
<dl><dt>Otherwise, if the move is part of a head to head
battle or the area to which the move is directed contains
a unit without move order or the area to which the move is
directed contains a unit with a move for which the status
of the MOVE decision is 'fails' or 'undecided' then:
<dd>The minimum ATTACK STRENGTH is zero when the moving
unit is of the same nationality of the unit that is
attacked or otherwise, one plus the number of orders
that support this move and for which the status of the
SUPPORT decision is 'given'. But only the support orders
of units of different nationality of the attacked unit
should be counted.
<dt>else:
<dd>The minimum ATTACK STRENGTH is one plus the number
of orders that support this move and for which the status
of the SUPPORT decision is 'given'.
</dl>
<dt>The maximum of a ATTACK STRENGTH decision of a unit
ordered to move must be calculated as follows:
<dd>In case the PATH decision of the unit is 'no path'
then the maximum of the ATTACK STRENGTH is zero.
<dl><dt>Otherwise, if the move is part of a head to
head battle or the area to which the move is directed
contains a unit without move order or the area to which
the move is directed contains a unit with a move order
for which the status of the MOVE decisions is 'fails' then:
<dd>The maximum ATTACK STRENGTH is zero when the moving
unit is of the same nationality of the unit that is
attacked or otherwise, one plus the number of orders
that support this moves and for which the status of the
SUPPORT decision is 'given' or 'undecided'. But only the
support orders of unit of different nationality of the
attacked unit should be counted.
<dt>else:
<dd>The maximum ATTACK STRENGTH is one plus the number
of orders that support this move and for which the status
of the SUPPORT decision is 'given' or 'undecided'.
</dl></dl>

<a name="5.B.5"><h4>5.B.5. HOLD STRENGTH DECISION</h4></a>
<p><dl><dt>The minimum of a HOLD STRENGTH decision of an area
must be calculated as follows:
<dd>In case the area is empty, then the minimum HOLD STRENGTH is zero.
In case the area contains a unit without a move order, then the
minimum HOLD STRENGTH is one plus the number of orders that support
this unit and that have a SUPPORT decision with status 'given'.
In case the area contains a unit with a move order, then
the minimum is zero when the MOVE decision has status 'moves'
or 'undecided' and the minimum is one when the MOVE decision
has status 'failed'.
<dt>The maximum of a HOLD STRENGTH decision of an area must be calculated as follows:
<dd>In case the area is empty, the maximum HOLD STRENGTH is zero.
In case the area contains a unit without a move order, then the
maximum HOLD STRENGTH is one plus the number of orders that support
this unit and that have a SUPPORT decision with status 'given' or 'undecided'.
In case the area contains a unit with a move order, then the
maximum is zero when the MOVE decision has status 'moves' and the
maximum is one when the MOVE decisions has status 'failed' or 'undecided'.
</dl>

<a name="5.B.6"><h4>5.B.6. PREVENT STRENGTH DECISION</h4></a>
<p><dl><dt>The minimum of a PREVENT STRENGTH decision of a
unit ordered to move must be calculated as follows:
<dd>In case the PATH decision of the unit is 'no path'
or 'undecided' then the minimum of the PREVENT STRENGTH is zero.
Also, when the move is part of a head to head battle and
the MOVE decision of the opposing unit has status 'moves'
or 'undecided', then the minimum of the PREVENT STRENGTH
is also zero. Otherwise, the minimum is one plus the number
of orders that support this move and for which the status
of the SUPPORT decision is 'given'.
<dt>The maximum of a PREVENT STRENGTH decision of a unit
ordered to move must be calculated as follows:
<dd>In case the PATH decision of the unit is 'no path'
then the maximum of the PREVENT STRENGTH is zero.
Also, when the move is part of a head to head battle and
the MOVE decision of the opposing unit has status 'moves',
then the maximum of the PREVENT STRENGTH is also zero.
Otherwise, the maximum is one plus the number of orders
that support this move and for which the status of the
SUPPORT decision is 'given' or 'undecided'.
</dl>
<p>Note that the PREVENT STRENGTH become zero when the
unit is engaged in a head to head battle and the MOVE
decision of the opposing unit has status 'moves'. If the condition
that the unit is engaged in a head to head battle, is
left out, then this may lead to a situation where two
units end in the same area (see test cases <a href="#6.G.16">6.G.16</a>,
<a href="#6.G.17">6.G.17</a> and <a href="#6.G.18">6.G.18</a>).
<p>If issue <a href="#4.A.7">4.A.7</a> must be adjudicated
according to choice a, then it should not be checked
whether the unit is engaged in a head to head battle.
Instead the PREVENT STRENGTH is zero when the MOVE
decision of the same unit has status 'fails' and the
MOVE decision of the opposing unit has status 'moves'.

<a name="5.B.7"><h4>5.B.7. DEFEND STRENGTH DECISION</h4></a>
<p><dl><dt>The minimum of a DEFEND STRENGTH decision of a
unit ordered to move must be calculated as follows:
<dd>One plus the number of orders that support this move
and for which the status of the SUPPORT decision is 'given'.
<dt>The maximum of a DEFEND STRENGTH decision of a unit
ordered to move must be calculated as follows:
<dd>One plus the number of orders that support this
move and for which the status of the SUPPORT decision
is 'given' or 'undecided'.
</dl>

<a name="5.B.8"><h4>5.B.8. PATH DECISION</h4></a>
<p><dl><dt>A PATH decision of a unit ordered to move
results in 'path' when:
<dd>The unit does not move by convoy or when there is
a path of convoying fleets with matching convoy orders
and for which the DISLODGE decision has status 'sustains'.
<dt>A PATH decision of a unit ordered to move results
in 'no path' when:
<dd>The unit moves by convoy and when there is a no path
of convoying fleets with matching convoy orders and for
which the DISLODGE decision has status 'sustains' or 'undecided'.
<dt>In all other cases a PATH decision of a unit ordered to
move remains 'undecided'.
</dl>
<p>Note that calculating the PATH decision does not require
that a search algorithm is started twice. Probably a
depth-first search algorithm is the easiest way for
programming. In such algorithm a search function is
called recursively. Normally, such recursive function
would only have two possible outcomes, 'failure' or
'success'. In this case it has three possible outcomes.
The recursive function first checks whether it is on
the destination and if so, the it returns 'sustains'.
Then it checks whether it has already been on the area.
If so, then it returns immediately 'no path'. In all
other cases the result of all sub-paths (calculated
recursively) is combined with the current DISLODGE
status of the area.

<a name="5.B.9"><h4>5.B.9. CIRCULAR MOVEMENT AND PARADOXES</h4></a>
<p>It is possible that during adjudication according to the given
prescriptions of making decisions, a situation occurs that no
decision can be made anymore while there are still decisions
to make. At such moment the board contains a circular movement
or convoy paradox. Those situations need special treatment.
<p>The first step in resolving a circular movement or paradox
is to determine which decisions are part of the circular
movement or the paradox core. This is achieved by listing
for each decision the decisions it directly depends on.
Decisions that are fully decided are completely left out of
this procedure. When these lists are made, these lists are
extended with all the indirect decisions dependencies. This
is continued until each decision has a list with all direct
and indirect (with possible multiple indirections)
dependencies. Every list forms a paradox, but the smallest
dependency list is a paradox core and only that list should
be considered. Note that there are probably more than one
dependency lists with an equal and smallest number of
dependencies. It is unimportant which one of these lists
is selected.
<p>In the second step the dependency list is analyzed. If
the list of decisions contains an undecided MOVE decision
of a unit that targets a fleet with a convoy order, then
there is a convoy disruption paradox. If there is no such
decision, then there is a circular movement. Note that if
one of the moving units in a circular movement moved with
certainty due to a support, then the adjudication of the
circular movement would have been resolved in the normal
process adjudication.
<p>In the final step the circular movement or paradox is
enforced by special rules and the normal decision making
process can continue. In case of a circular movement, all
the MOVE decisions of the dependency list are resolved to
'moves'. In case of convoy disruption paradox, a convoy
paradox rule must be applied on the dependency list. Note
that the MOVE decision of the army that convoys is not
in the dependency list, since for the paradox only the
cutting of support is essential. Therefore only the
ATTACK STRENGTH decision of the army that convoys
appears in the dependency list. This is important when
applying the Szykman rule or the 'All Hold' rule.
<p>When the Szykman rule is applied, all ATTACK STRENGTH
decisions in the dependency list are set to zero for
both minimum as maximum. The corresponding MOVE decision
is set to failed and the corresponding PREVENT STRENGTH
is also to zero for both minimum as maximum.
<p>If you interpret the 2000 rulebook in such that in
some very rare cases the attacked unit is dislodged by
the convoying army (see discussion in issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>, and
test case <a href="#6.F.17">6.F.17</a>), then first the dependency list must
be searched for a SUPPORT decision of a support order
of an attack on a convoying fleet that convoys an
army to the area of the supporting unit. That
SUPPORT decision must be set to 'given'. If no
such decision could be found, then the 2000 rulebook
has no resolution and a fallback rule must be used
such as the Szykman rule or the 'All Hold' rule.
<p>Variant rules may introduce new kind of paradoxes
(see test cases <a href="#9.E">9.E</a>, <a href="#9.F">9.F</a>
and <a href="#9.G">9.G</a>). If those rules are included,
then it is dangerous to conclude that there is a
circular movement in case the dependency list does
not contain a convoy disruption paradox. It is
better to check if the moving units of all the
MOVE decisions of the dependency list are part
of one single circular movement. If so, these
units advance, but if not then a fallback paradox
rule must be applied. In this fallback scenario
all the MOVE decisions of the dependency list
resolve in 'fails' and all the SUPPORT decisions
of the list resolve in 'cut'.

<a name="5.B.10"><h4>5.B.10. HEAD TO HEAD BATTLES DEPENDENT ON ADJUDICATION</h4></a>
<p>In most interpretations of the rules, it can directly determined
whether two units that move in opposite direction will fight a head
to head battle or try to swap (by using a convoy). This can be
decided before any adjudication. However, if issue
<a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a> is interpreted according to choice
c, then the convoy route to the adjacent place must be adjudicated
before it can be decided whether the moves will result in a head
to head battle.
<p>The adjudication of this has some additional complexities. It
can be implemented by introducing a new decision 'HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE'.
This decision should have as result whether two units that move in
opposite direction, will fight a head to head battle or not. The
MOVE decision, the ATTACK STRENGTH decision and the PREVENT STRENGTH
decision must be changed such that they use the HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE
decision.
<p>For the implementation of the HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE decision, the
'CONVOY PATH' decision must be introduced. When there is a successful
convoy path for at least one of the opposing units, then there is
no head to head battle, otherwise the units will fight a head to
head battle. The CONVOY PATH decision is similar to the PATH
decision, but will only result in 'path' when the unit can move
to the destination by using at least one convoying fleet. To
avoid duplication of code, the implementation of the PATH
decision can be simplified by using the CONVOY PATH decision.

<a name="5.B.11"><h4>5.B.11. RETREAT</h4></a>
<p>To which areas a unit may retreat, must be calculated after
adjudicating the main phase, because it depends on the orders
given in the main phase. It is insufficient to just mark the
areas to which a retreated is possible, since there are
situation where one unit may retreat to a certain, while
another may not (see test case <a href="#6.H.10">6.H.10</a> ). So, for every dislodged
unit a list of areas must be created to which it may retreat.
<p>How a retreat must be calculated is based on the principle
as worded in the rulebook: "A dislodged unit must retreat to
an adjacent province that it could ordinarily move to if
unopposed by other units." That means that the logic of a
retreat is similar to the MOVE decision. A unit may retreat
to an area if the unit may move to the area directly (so,
without convoy), the PREVENT STRENGTH of all units that
attempted to move to the area is zero, the HOLD STRENGTH of
the area is zero and there is no unit that moved successfully
in the opposite direction. All these calculations must be
made as part of the adjudication of the main phase.

<a name="5.C"><h3>5.C. FROM DECISIONS TO ALGORITHM</h3></a>
<p>In the final step the principle of decisions is transformed
into an algorithm. Whatever for algorithm is made, the
decisions will always be part of the algorithm one way or
another. This is for the simple reason that the decisions
are directly based on the rules. However, there are two
fundamental different ways to deal with the dependencies
of the decisions:
<ul>
<li>A sequence based algorithm.</li>
<li>A decision based algorithm.</li>
</ul>
<p>In a sequence based algorithm, the program tackles the
problem of dependencies by making the decisions in a hard
programmed sequence. The sequence guarantees that when a
decisions is made, any other dependent decisions are
already decided. For instance, the algorithm will probably
start by cutting supports. Then it will try to resolve
moves that will dislodge a convoying fleet and finally
it will resolve the moves. If a unit moves to an area
where a second unit is ordered to move, it will first
resolve the move of the second unit. This can be
implemented by a recursive function.
<p>The advantage of the sequence based algorithm is that
it does not need to have the administration of all the
decisions. The decisions do not require an 'undecided'
state. A support decision is 'given' until it is decided
to be 'cut'. The sequence in which the decisions are
made, will guarantee that this will lead to the correct
results. It is not too difficult to make a sequence
based algorithm that handles the most common situations
correctly. However, for a perfect adjudicator that
passes all test cases in this document and that handles
second order paradoxes according to the Szykman rule,
a sequence based algorithm becomes very complex. The
DPTG is an example of a sequence based algorithm and
it shows the difficulties of handling convoy paradoxes
in a sequence based algorithm.
<p>The alternative is the decision based algorithm. A
decision based algorithm starts with setting up the
administration of the decisions based on the orders.
Initially all decisions are undecided. Then the
algorithm tries to make decisions one by one without
paying attention to the sequence. If a decision can
not be made due to a dependency on another decision,
then the algorithm just goes to the next decision.
When all decisions are handled once this way, it
just starts all over again. It will repeat this until
all decisions are made. It is also possible that
there are still decisions to be made, but none of
them can be decided. The algorithm detects it,
resolved the circular movement or applies a paradox
rule on the remaining decisions and restarts the
decision process.
<p>The key principle in a decision based algorithm,
is that when a decision is made, then that decision
is final. This principle is necessary because of the
undefined sequence in which decisions are made. If a
decision would be changed, then a second decision
that is based on that decision would have a result
dependent if the decision would be made before or
after the change. So, in such case the result becomes
dependent on the (undefined) sequence and therefore
there is no guarantee that the result will be correct.
<p>The advantage of a decision based algorithm above
a sequence based algorithm is that the logic of the
sequence does not need to be programmed. The
disadvantage is that all decisions have to be
programmed twice. Once for deciding if the decision
fails (or the minimum in case of a numerical decision)
and once for deciding if the decision succeeds (or
the maximum in case of a numerical decision). But
still, if a fully correct algorithm is required it
is probably much easier to write a decision based
algorithm then a sequence based algorithm. The
decisions are close to the original text of the
rulebook. It is also easier to add variant rules
since any impact on the sequence does not need to
programmed. A second disadvantage of a decision
based algorithm is the additional memory
administration of the decisions, however as we
will see, this can be simplified.
<p>In a program with a decision based algorithm,
two functions for each decision can be recognized.
One function that returns the current status of
the decision and another function that updates it.
For instance the functions for the ATTACK STRENGTH
decision would look like:
<p><pre>
    current_ATTACK_STRENGTH(
                in    order_type          order,
                out   integer             min_strength,
                out   integer             max_strength)

    boolean update_ATTACK_STRENGTH(
                in    order_type          order)
</pre>
<p>The update function contains the logic as described in
section <a href="#5.B">5.B</a>. It returns a boolean
value. This value is set when the status of the decision
has been changed. If in an iteration there is no change
in the status of the decisions, then all the decision
are made or a paradox is detected.
<p>For breaking a circular movement or a paradox, the
dependencies has to be calculated. Each decision should
have a list of dependencies. When this process is started,
these lists are set to empty. Furthermore, for each
decision two additional function are required. One
function that adds the current dependencies of a
decision to a list. It also adds itself to the list.
The other function updates the dependencies of a
decision. For the ATTACK STRENGTH decision this
would look like:
<p><pre>
    boolean add_dependencies_ATTACK_STRENGTH(
                in    order_type          order,
                inout decision_list_type  dependencies)

    boolean update_dependencies_ATTACK_STRENGTH(
                in    order_typ           order)
</pre>
<p>Decisions that are fully decided, are not added to
the dependency lists. Both functions return a boolean
value. This value is set when anything is changed to
the dependency list. For calculating the dependencies,
the update functions should repeatedly called until
there are no changes in the dependencies anymore.
The decisions of the circular movement or paradox are
located by taking the decision with the smallest
dependency list. The decisions of the dependency list
should be further examined (see section
<a href="#5.B.9">5.B.9</a>). After the circular movement
or paradox is resolved, the program should continue
making decisions in the normal way.

<a name="5.D"><h3>5.D. SIMPLIFICATIONS AND OPTIMIZATIONS</h3></a>
<p>The program as just described follows the principles of the
decisions in a straight forward way. However, some
simplifications and optimizations can be made. It is not
necessary to have all kinds of data structures for
administrating the decisions. For most decisions the
'current' function can be changed in such way that it
calculates the result, rather then taking the information
out of data structures. This means that are no data
structures for that decision type required and the
logic of the 'update' function is moved to the
'current' function. The 'update' function itself
becomes obsolete. Only the administration of the MOVE
and SUPPORT decisions should remain. But this
administration is very simple and is probably already there.
<p>If this simplification is chosen, then here is a small
is issue concerning paradox resolving. When the Szykman
rule is applied, then the decisions of type
ATTACK STRENGTH and PREVENT STRENGTH are set to zero.
With the simplification this is not possible anymore,
since there is no administration of these decisions.
Instead the decision of the support of the attacked
unit should set to 'given' and the MOVE decision
should be set to 'failed'. For the standard rules
this will give the same results, but theoretically
a variant rule could be designed where this makes
a difference. This can be prevented by adding a flag
to the move order and let the 'current' functions of
the ATTACK STRENGTH and PREVENT STRENGTH check on
this flag. However, this is rather overzealous,
since it is unlikely that such variant rule would
be invented.
<p>The simplification is probably more efficient than
the original. In some cases a decision might be calculated
more than once, but this is compensated by the following facts:
<ul>
<li>There is less effort in setting up the decision data.</li>
<li>Some decisions (such as PREVENT STRENGTH) are only calculated when required.</li>
<li>There are less decisions administrated and that means that in most cases
there are less iterations necessary for the final result (for instance,
simple support cuts will be decided in the first iteration, while
without simplification this is only certain in the second iteration
when all minimum values of the 'ATTACK STRENGTH' decisions will have
at least the required value of one for a support cut).
</ul>
<p>The program can be further optimized by trying to calculate the
MOVE and SUPPORT decisions when they are requested and when they are
still undecided. This means that the 'current' function and 'update'
function are also merged for the MOVE and SUPPORT decisions. This
leads to recursive calls and without precaution this may lead to
an endless recursion. This is prevented by introducing a flag for
each MOVE and SUPPORT decision (it is not necessary to introduce
this flag for the other decisions). When such decision is calculated,
the flag is set and when such decision is requested it will not
start calculating it when the flag is already set.
<p>If an endless recursion is detected, then it is not necessarily
a paradox. Consider the following situation:
<p><pre>
France:
A Gascony - Burgundy
A Ruhr Supports A Gascony - Burgundy

Germany:
A Burgundy Supports A Kiel - Ruhr
A Kiel - Ruhr
</pre>
<p>When the French order of the army in Gascony is calculated, the
following calls will be made:
<p><pre>
MOVE(Gascony - Burgundy)
  ATTACK STRENGTH(Gascony - Burgundy)
    SUPPORT(Ruhr Support A Gascony - Burgundy)
      ATTACK STRENGTH(Kiel - Ruhr)
        SUPPORT(Burgundy Supports A Kiel - Ruhr)
          ATTACK STRENGTH(Gascony - Burgundy)
            SUPPORT(Ruhr Support A Gascony - Burgundy)
              ...
</pre>
<p>In the last call for the calculation of the success of the
support of the army Ruhr, an endless recursion is detected
(there is no endless recursion detection in the routine that
calculates the ATTACK STRENGTH). In this situation the function
must give as result that this support is still 'undecided'.
However, this does not mean that the adjudication fails. The
last ATTACK STRENGTH call for the army in Gascony will have
a minimum result of 1 and a maximum result of 2. This is
enough to decide that the SUPPORT of the army in Burgundy
fails. All the other decisions can then be made.
<p>A similar situation can occur with circular movement.
When one of the moving units is supported and moves
unconditionally or one of the moving units is blocked
by a unit not part of the circular movement, then an
endless recursion will be detected due to circular
movement, but finally all the decisions will still be
adjudicated.
<p>An interesting case is the example on page 16 of the 2000 rulebook:
<p><pre>
France:
A Tunis - Naples
F Tyrrhenian Sea Convoys A Tunis - Naples
F Ionian Sea Convoys A Tunis - Naples

Italy:
F Naples Supports F Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea
F Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea
</pre>
<p>For the army in Tunis, the PATH decision has to be calculated.
For this calculation a search routine will be used and this
routine may first try the route via the Tyrrhenian Sea. This
leads to the following calls:
<p><pre>
MOVE(Tunis - Naples)
  ATTACK STRENGTH(Tunis - Naples)
    PATH(Tunis - Naples)
      DISLODGE(Tyrrhenian Sea)
        MOVE(Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea)
          ATTACK STRENGTH(Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea)
            SUPPORT(Naples Supports
                    F Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea)
              ATTACK STRENGTH(Tunis - Naples)
                PATH(Tunis - Naples)
                  DISLODGE(Tyrrhenian Sea)
                    MOVE(Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea)
</pre>
<p>Finally, in the last MOVE call, the endless recursions is
detected. Still, this does not lead to a failure in adjudication,
since the routine that calculates the PATH decisions will
eventually try the route via Ionian Sea and this opens the
possibility for making the other decisions.
<p>In case there is no way to make a decision anymore, then
the mechanism of endless recursion detection can also be used
to determine the paradox core. This simplifies the algorithm
further, since it eliminates the need for calculating and
administration of dependencies lists. For each MOVE and
SUPPORT decision not only a flag must be maintained whether
this decision has already been attempted to calculate in
the recursion, but also an identification that refers to
the previous calculation of the MOVE or SUPPORT decision
in the recursion. When the endless recursion is detected,
then these identification can be traversed until the
identification is encountered of the decision where the
endless recursion is detected (you should not use all
the decisions currently be calculated in the recursion,
but only those decisions that are circular dependent).
This set of decisions form a circular movement
or form the paradox core. These can
treated as described earlier. Since these decisions are
now made, they should not be altered when the functions
return out of the recursion. Therefore there should be a
way to signal that a paradox or circular movement has
been resolved and that no further decisions should
be made when returning out of the recursion. Another
way is that the MOVE and
SUPPORT decision functions recheck the status of
the decision after they have called other functions.
<p>Resolving circular movement and paradoxes this way,
may only be done when adjudication really fails. When
an endless recursion is detected, then it must be clear
whether adjudication should just continue or whether
circular movement or paradoxes should be handled. To
distinguish these two situation an additional flag is
needed. This flag can be a global variable. The main
routine of adjudication becomes something like this:
<p><pre>
LOOP i OVER ALL SUPPORT AND MOVE ORDERS
    WHILE ORDER i IS UNDECIDED
        # Calculate order without attempting to
        # handle circular movement or paradoxes.
        BREAK_CIRCULAR_MOVEMENT_OR_PARADOX = FALSE
        CALCULATE ORDER i
        IF ORDER i IS UNDECIDED
            # Adjudication has now locked up. There is
            # a circular movement or paradox. Retry the
            # same order, but now with handling of
            # circular movement and paradoxes.
            BREAK_CIRCULAR_MOVEMENT_OR_PARADOX = TRUE
            CALCULATE ORDER i
        END IF
    END WHILE
END LOOP
</pre>
<p>This trick of determining circular movement or the paradox
core works only, because circular movement or the paradox core
consists always of a single circular dependency list. If a
paradox sensitive variant rule is added that introduces more
complex paradox cores, then this trick won't work. In such
case the original method of calculating the smallest
dependency list should be used.
<p>As you can see, with these simplifications the program
is not that large. Besides the main function and some
pre-processing functions, you have only one function for
each decision. The administration is also minimal. For
the MOVE and SUPPORT orders a flag for endless recursions
detection and identification that refers to the previous
MOVE or SUPPORT order in the recursion.
<a name="5.E"><h3>5.E. PERFORMANCE</h3></a>
<p>A comparison of execution speed with a sequence
based algorithm is difficult to give. Both ways have
their advantages and disadvantages in execution speed.
Finally, it should be noted that this is only important
for artificial intelligence programs, because for
normal adjudication the time is not noticeable even
on a slow computer.
<p>If execution speed is really important, then one
should optimize the most common situation. Sometimes
programmers try to optimize the rare situations, however
this useless and may in fact lead to slower programs,
because of the additional logic. The decision based
algorithm is rather inefficient in the most common
support cuts. Since most adjudication decisions consists
of simple support and move orders, this is probably a
good candidate for optimization. Before the decision
algorithm is started, set all the support orders on
'given'. Then loop on all move orders. If a move order
is to an area with a unit with a support order, then
this support is 'cut' when the move is direct (so,
without convoy) and the support is not for a move to
the starting position of the move. Otherwise, the
support is set to 'undecided' when it was not yet 'cut'.
<p>This pre-processing phase will decide most of the
SUPPORT decisions. Still, it should be realized that
this speed optimization will slow down the adjudication
process in case there are no support orders.

<a name="6"><h3>6. TEST CASES</h3></a>

<a name="6.A"><h3>6.A. TEST CASES, BASIC CHECKS</h3></a>

<a name="6.A.1"><h4>6.A.1 TEST CASE, MOVING TO AN AREA THAT IS NOT A NEIGHBOUR</h4></a>
<p>Check if an illegal move (without convoy) will fail.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea - Picardy
</pre>
<p>Order should fail.

<a name="6.A.2"><h4>6.A.2. TEST CASE, MOVE ARMY TO SEA</h4></a>
<p>Check if an army could not be moved to open sea.
<p><pre>
England:
A Liverpool - Irish Sea
</pre>
<p>Order should fail.

<a name="6.A.3"><h4>6.A.3. TEST CASE, MOVE FLEET TO LAND</h4></a>
<p>Check whether a fleet can not move to land.
<p><pre>
Germany:
F Kiel - Munich
</pre>
<p>Order should fail.

<a name="6.A.4"><h4>6.A.4. TEST CASE, MOVE TO OWN SECTOR</h4></a>
<p>Moving to the same sector is an illegal move
(2000 rulebook, page 4, "An Army can be ordered to move into
an adjacent inland or coastal province.").
<p><pre>
Germany:
F Kiel - Kiel
</pre>
<p>Program should not crash.

<a name="6.A.5"><h4>6.A.5. TEST CASE, MOVE TO OWN SECTOR WITH CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>Moving to the same sector is still illegal with convoy
(2000 rulebook, page 4, "Note: An Army can move across water
provinces from one coastal province to another...").
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A Yorkshire - Yorkshire
A Yorkshire - Yorkshire
A Liverpool Supports A Yorkshire - Yorkshire

Germany:
F London - Yorkshire
A Wales Supports F London - Yorkshire
</pre>
<p>The move of the army in Yorkshire is illegal. This makes the
support of Liverpool also illegal and without the support, the Germans have
a stronger force. The army in London dislodges the army in
Yorkshire.

<a name="6.A.6"><h4>6.A.6. TEST CASE, ORDERING A UNIT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY</h4></a>
<p>Check whether someone can not order a unit that is not his own unit.

<p>England has a fleet in London.
<p><pre>
Germany:
F London - North Sea
</pre>
<p>Order should fail.

<a name="6.A.7"><h4>6.A.7. TEST CASE, ONLY ARMIES CAN BE CONVOYED</h4></a>
<p>A fleet can not be convoyed.
<p><pre>
England:
F London - Belgium
F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium
</pre>
<p>Move from London to Belgium should fail.

<a name="6.A.8"><h4>6.A.8. TEST CASE, SUPPORT TO HOLD YOURSELF IS NOT POSSIBLE</h4></a>
<p>An army can not get an additional hold power by supporting itself.
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Venice - Trieste
A Tyrolia Supports A Venice - Trieste

Austria:
F Trieste Supports F Trieste
</pre>
<p>The army in Trieste should be dislodged.

<a name="6.A.9"><h4>6.A.9. TEST CASE, FLEETS MUST FOLLOW COAST IF NOT ON SEA</h4></a>
<p>If two places are adjacent, that does not mean that a fleet can move between
those two places. An implementation that only holds one list of adjacent places
for each place, is incorrect.
<p><pre>
Italy:
F Rome - Venice
</pre>
<p>Move fails. An army can go from Rome to Venice, but a fleet can not.

<a name="6.A.10"><h4>6.A.10. TEST CASE, SUPPORT ON UNREACHABLE DESTINATION NOT POSSIBLE</h4></a>
<p>The destination of the move that is supported must be reachable by
the supporting unit.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Venice Hold

Italy:
F Rome Supports A Apulia - Venice
A Apulia - Venice
</pre>
<p>The support of Rome is illegal, because Venice can not be reached
from Rome by a fleet. Venice is not dislodged.

<a name="6.A.11"><h4>6.A.11. TEST CASE, SIMPLE BOUNCE</h4></a>
<p>Two armies bouncing on each other.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Vienna - Tyrolia

Italy:
A Venice - Tyrolia
</pre>
<p>The two units bounce.

<a name="6.A.12"><h4>6.A.12. TEST CASE, BOUNCE OF THREE UNITS</h4></a>
<p>If three units move to the same place, the adjudicator should
not bounce the first two units and then let the third unit go to
the now open place.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Vienna - Tyrolia

Germany:
A Munich - Tyrolia

Italy:
A Venice - Tyrolia
</pre>
<p>The three units bounce.

<a name="6.B"><h3>6.B. TEST CASES, COASTAL ISSUES</h3></a>

<a name="6.B.1"><h4>6.B.1. TEST CASE, MOVING WITH UNSPECIFIED COAST WHEN COAST IS NECESSARY</h4></a>
<p>Coast is significant in this case:
<p><pre>
France:
F Portugal - Spain
</pre>
<p>Some adjudicators take a default coast (see issue <a href="#4.B.1">4.B.1</a>).
<p><i>I prefer that the move fails.</i>

<a name="6.B.2"><h4>6.B.2. TEST CASE, MOVING WITH UNSPECIFIED COAST WHEN COAST IS NOT NECESSARY</h4></a>
<p>There is only one coast possible in this case:
<p><pre>
France:
F Gascony - Spain
</pre>
<p>Since the North Coast is the only coast that can be reached, it seems
logical that the a move is attempted to the north coast of Spain.
Some adjudicators require that a coast is also specified in this case
and will decide that the move fails or take a
default coast (see issue <a href="#4.B.2">4.B.2</a>).
<p><i>I prefer that an attempt is made to the only possible coast, the
north coast of Spain.</i>

<a name="6.B.3"><h4>6.B.3. TEST CASE, MOVING WITH WRONG COAST WHEN COAST IS NOT NECESSARY</h4></a>
<p>If only one coast is possible, but the wrong coast can be specified.
<p><pre>
France:
F Gascony - Spain(sc)
</pre>
<p>If the rules are played very clemently, a move will be attempted to the
north coast of Spain. However, since this order is very clear and precise,
it is more common that the move fails (see issue <a href="#4.B.3">4.B.3</a>).
<p><i>I prefer that the move fails.</i>

<a name="6.B.4"><h4>6.B.4. TEST CASE, SUPPORT TO UNREACHABLE COAST ALLOWED</h4></a>
<p>A fleet can give support to a coast where it can not go.
<p><pre>
France:
F Gascony - Spain(nc)
F Marseilles Supports F Gascony - Spain(nc)

Italy:
F Western Mediterranean - Spain(sc)
</pre>
<p>Although the fleet in Marseilles can not go to the north coast
it can still support targeting the north coast. So, the support
is successful, the move of the fleet in Gasgony succeeds and the
move of the Italian fleet fails.

<a name="6.B.5"><h4>6.B.5. TEST CASE, SUPPORT FROM UNREACHABLE COAST NOT ALLOWED</h4></a>
<p>A fleet can not give support to an area that can not be reached
from the current coast of the fleet.
<p><pre>
France:
F Marseilles - Gulf of Lyon
F Spain(nc) Supports F Marseilles - Gulf of Lyon

Italy:
F Gulf of Lyon Hold
</pre>
<p>The Gulf of Lyon can not be reached from the North Coast of Spain.
Therefore, the support of Spain is invalid and the fleet in the Gulf
of Lyon is not dislodged.

<a name="6.B.6"><h4>6.B.6. TEST CASE, SUPPORT CAN BE CUT WITH OTHER COAST</h4></a>
<p>Support can be cut from the other coast.
<p><pre>
England:
F Irish Sea Supports F North Atlantic Ocean - Mid-Atlantic Ocean
F North Atlantic Ocean - Mid-Atlantic Ocean

France:
F Spain(nc) Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Hold

Italy:
F Gulf of Lyon - Spain(sc)
</pre>
<p>The Italian fleet in the Gulf of Lyon will cut the support in Spain.
That means that the French fleet in the Mid Atlantic Ocean will be
dislodged by the English fleet in the North Atlantic Ocean.

<a name="6.B.7"><h4>6.B.7. TEST CASE, SUPPORTING WITH UNSPECIFIED COAST</h4></a>
<p>Most house rules accept support orders without coast specification.
<p><pre>
France:
F Portugal Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Spain
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Spain(nc)

Italy:
F Gulf of Lyon Supports F Western Mediterranean - Spain(sc)
F Western Mediterranean - Spain(sc)
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.B.4">4.B.4</a>. If coasts are not required in
support orders, then the support of Portugal is successful. This
means that the Italian fleet in the Western Mediterranean bounces. Some
adjudicators may not accept a support order without coast (the support
will fail or a default coast is taken). In that case the support order of
Portugal fails (in case of a default coast the coast will probably the
south coast) and the Italian fleet in the Western Mediterranean will
successfully move.
<p><i>I prefer that the support succeeds and the Italian fleet in the
Western Mediterranean bounces.</i>

<a name="6.B.8"><h4>6.B.8. TEST CASE, SUPPORTING WITH UNSPECIFIED COAST WHEN ONLY ONE COAST IS POSSIBLE</h4></a>
<p>Some hardliners require a coast in a support order even when only
one coast is possible.
<p><pre>
France:
F Portugal Supports F Gascony - Spain
F Gascony - Spain(nc)

Italy:
F Gulf of Lyon Supports F Western Mediterranean - Spain(sc)
F Western Mediterranean - Spain(sc)
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.B.4">4.B.4</a>. If coasts are not required in
support orders, then the support of Portugal is successful. This
means that the Italian fleet in the Western Mediterranean bounces. Some
adjudicators may not accept a support order without coast (the support
will fail or a default coast is taken). In that case the support order of
Portugal fails (in case of a default coast the coast will probably the
south coast) and the Italian fleet in the Western Mediterranean will
successfully move.
<p><i>I prefer that supporting without coasts should be allowed. So I prefer
that the support of Portugal is successful and that the Italian fleet in the
Western Mediterranean bounces.</i>

<a name="6.B.9"><h4>6.B.9. TEST CASE, SUPPORTING WITH WRONG COAST</h4></a>
<p>Coasts can be specified in a support, but the result depends on the
house rules.
<p><pre>
France:
F Portugal Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Spain(nc)
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Spain(sc)

Italy:
F Gulf of Lyon Supports F Western Mediterranean - Spain(sc)
F Western Mediterranean - Spain(sc)
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.B.4">4.B.4</a>. If it is required that the coast
matches, then the support of the French fleet in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean fails
and that the Italian fleet in the Western Mediterranean moves successfully.
Some adjudicators ignores the coasts in support orders. In that case,
the move of the Italian fleet bounces.
<p><i>I prefer that the support fails and that the Italian fleet in the
Western Mediterranean moves successfully.</i>

<h4><a name="6.B.10">6.B.10. TEST CASE, UNIT ORDERED WITH WRONG COAST</h4></a>
<p>A player might specify the wrong coast for the ordered unit.
<p>France has a fleet on the south coast of Spain and orders:
<p><pre>France:
F Spain(nc) - Gulf of Lyon
</pre>
<p>If only perfect orders are accepted, then the move will fail, but since
the coast for the ordered unit has no purpose, it might also be ignored
(see issue <a href="#4.B.5">4.B.5</a>).
<p><i>I prefer that a move will be attempted.</i>

<h4><a name="6.B.11">6.B.11. TEST CASE, COAST CAN NOT BE ORDERED TO CHANGE</h4></a>
<p>The coast can not change by just ordering the other coast.
<p>France has a fleet on the north coast of Spain and orders:
<p><pre>France:
F Spain(sc) - Gulf of Lyon
</pre>
<p>The move fails.

<h4><a name="6.B.12">6.B.12. TEST CASE, ARMY MOVEMENT WITH COASTAL SPECIFICATION</h4></a>
<p>For armies the coasts are irrelevant:
<p><pre>France:
A Gascony - Spain(nc)
</pre>
<p>If only perfect orders are accepted, then the move will fail. But it is
also possible that coasts are ignored in this case and a move will be attempted
(see issue <a href="#4.B.6">4.B.6</a>).
<p><i>I prefer that a move will be attempted.</i>

<a name="6.B.13"><h4>6.B.13. TEST CASE, COASTAL CRAWL NOT ALLOWED</h4></a>
<p>If a fleet is leaving a sector from a certain coast while in the
opposite direction another fleet is moving to another coast of the
sector, it is still a head to head battle. This has been decided
in the great revision of the 1961 rules that resulted in the 1971
rules.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
F Bulgaria(sc) - Constantinople
F Constantinople - Bulgaria(ec)
</pre>
<p>Both moves fail.

<a name="6.B.14"><h4>6.B.14. TEST CASE, BUILDING WITH UNSPECIFIED COAST</h4></a>
<p>Coast must be specified in certain build cases:
<p><pre>
Russia:
Build F St Petersburg
</pre>
<p>If no default coast is taken (see issue <a href="#4.B.7">4.B.7</a>),
the build fails.
<p><i>I do not like default coast, so I prefer that the build fails.</i>

<a name="6.C"><h3>6.C. TEST CASES, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT</h3></a>

<a name="6.C.1"><h4>6.C.1. TEST CASE, THREE ARMY CIRCULAR MOVEMENT</h4></a>
<p>Three units can change place, even in spring 1901.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
F Ankara - Constantinople
A Constantinople - Smyrna
A Smyrna - Ankara
</pre>
<p>All three units will move.

<a name="6.C.2"><h4>6.C.2. TEST CASE, THREE ARMY CIRCULAR MOVEMENT WITH SUPPORT</h4></a>
<p>Three units can change place, even when one gets support.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
F Ankara - Constantinople
A Constantinople - Smyrna
A Smyrna - Ankara
A Bulgaria Supports F Ankara - Constantinople
</pre>
<p>Of course the three units will move, but knowing how
programs are written, this can confuse the adjudicator.

<a name="6.C.3"><h4>6.C.3. TEST CASE, A DISRUPTED THREE ARMY CIRCULAR MOVEMENT</h4></a>
<p>When one of the units bounces, the whole circular movement will hold.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
F Ankara - Constantinople
A Constantinople - Smyrna
A Smyrna - Ankara
A Bulgaria - Constantinople
</pre>
<p>Every unit will keep its place.

<a name="6.C.4"><h4>6.C.4. TEST CASE, A CIRCULAR MOVEMENT WITH ATTACKED CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>When the circular movement contains an attacked convoy, the circular
movement succeeds. The adjudication algorithm should handle attack of
convoys before calculating circular movement.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Trieste - Serbia
A Serbia - Bulgaria

Turkey:
A Bulgaria - Trieste
F Aegean Sea Convoys A Bulgaria - Trieste
F Ionian Sea Convoys A Bulgaria - Trieste
F Adriatic Sea Convoys A Bulgaria - Trieste

Italy:
F Naples - Ionian Sea
</pre>
<p>The fleet in the Ionian Sea is attacked but not dislodged. The circular
movement succeeds. The Austrian and Turkish armies will advance.

<a name="6.C.5"><h4>6.C.5. TEST CASE, A DISRUPTED CIRCULAR MOVEMENT DUE TO DISLODGED CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>When the circular movement contains a convoy, the circular
movement is disrupted when the convoying fleet is dislodged.
The adjudication algorithm should disrupt convoys before calculating
circular movement.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Trieste - Serbia
A Serbia - Bulgaria

Turkey:
A Bulgaria - Trieste
F Aegean Sea Convoys A Bulgaria - Trieste
F Ionian Sea Convoys A Bulgaria - Trieste
F Adriatic Sea Convoys A Bulgaria - Trieste

Italy:
F Naples - Ionian Sea
F Tunis Supports F Naples - Ionian Sea
</pre>
<p>Due to the dislodged convoying fleet, all Austrian and Turkish armies
will not move.

<a name="6.C.6"><h4>6.C.6. TEST CASE, TWO ARMIES WITH TWO CONVOYS</h4></a>
<p>Two armies can swap places even when they are not adjacent.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium
A London - Belgium

France:
F English Channel Convoys A Belgium - London
A Belgium - London
</pre>
<p>Both convoys should succeed.

<a name="6.C.7"><h4>6.C.7. TEST CASE, DISRUPTED UNIT SWAP</h4></a>
<p>If in a swap one of the unit bounces, then the swap fails.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium
A London - Belgium

France:
F English Channel Convoys A Belgium - London
A Belgium - London
A Burgundy - Belgium
</pre>
<p>None of the units will succeed to move.

<a name="6.D"><h3>6.D. TEST CASES, SUPPORTS AND DISLODGES</h3></a>

<a name="6.D.1"><h4>6.D.1. TEST CASE, SUPPORTED HOLD CAN PREVENT DISLODGEMENT</h4></a>
<p>The most simple support to hold order.
<p><pre>
Austria:
F Adriatic Sea Supports A Trieste - Venice
A Trieste - Venice

Italy:
A Venice Hold
A Tyrolia Supports A Venice
</pre>
<p>The support of Tyrolia prevents that the army in Venice is dislodged. The
army in Trieste will not move.

<a name="6.D.2"><h4>6.D.2. TEST CASE, A MOVE CUTS SUPPORT ON HOLD</h4></a>
<p>The most simple support on hold cut.
<p><pre>
Austria:
F Adriatic Sea Supports A Trieste - Venice
A Trieste - Venice
A Vienna - Tyrolia

Italy:
A Venice Hold
A Tyrolia Supports A Venice
</pre>
<p>The support of Tyrolia is cut by the army in Vienna. That means that the
army in Venice is dislodged by the army from Trieste.

<a name="6.D.3"><h4>6.D.3. TEST CASE, A MOVE CUTS SUPPORT ON MOVE</h4></a>
<p>The most simple support on move cut.
<p><pre>
Austria:
F Adriatic Sea Supports A Trieste - Venice
A Trieste - Venice

Italy:
A Venice Hold
F Ionian Sea - Adriatic Sea
</pre>
<p>The support of the fleet in the Adriatic Sea is cut. That means that the
army in Venice will not be dislodged and the army in Trieste stays in Trieste.

<a name="6.D.4"><h4>6.D.4. TEST CASE, SUPPORT TO HOLD ON UNIT SUPPORTING A HOLD ALLOWED</h4></a>
<p>A unit that is supporting a hold, can receive a hold support.
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Berlin Supports F Kiel
F Kiel Supports A Berlin

Russia:
F Baltic Sea Supports A Prussia - Berlin
A Prussia - Berlin
</pre>
<p>The Russian move from Prussia to Berlin fails.

<a name="6.D.5"><h4>6.D.5. TEST CASE, SUPPORT TO HOLD ON UNIT SUPPORTING A MOVE ALLOWED</h4></a>
<p>A unit that is supporting a move, can receive a hold support.
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Berlin Supports A Munich - Silesia
F Kiel Supports A Berlin
A Munich - Silesia

Russia:
F Baltic Sea Supports A Prussia - Berlin
A Prussia - Berlin
</pre>
<p>The Russian move from Prussia to Berlin fails.

<a name="6.D.6"><h4>6.D.6. TEST CASE, SUPPORT TO HOLD ON CONVOYING UNIT ALLOWED</h4></a>
<p>A unit that is convoying, can receive a hold support.
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Berlin - Sweden
F Baltic Sea Convoys A Berlin - Sweden
F Prussia Supports F Baltic Sea

Russia:
F Livonia - Baltic Sea
F Gulf of Bothnia Supports F Livonia - Baltic Sea
</pre>
<p>The Russian move from Livonia to the Baltic Sea fails. The convoy from
Berlin to Sweden succeeds.

<a name="6.D.7"><h4>6.D.7. TEST CASE, SUPPORT TO HOLD ON MOVING UNIT NOT ALLOWED</h4></a>
<p>A unit that is moving, can not receive a hold support for the situation that the
move fails.
<p><pre>
Germany:
F Baltic Sea - Sweden
F Prussia Supports F Baltic Sea

Russia:
F Livonia - Baltic Sea
F Gulf of Bothnia Supports F Livonia - Baltic Sea
A Finland - Sweden
</pre>
<p>The support of the fleet in Prussia fails. The fleet in Baltic Sea will bounce
on the Russian army in Finland and will be dislodged by the Russian fleet from
Livonia when it returns to the Baltic Sea.

<a name="6.D.8"><h4>6.D.8. TEST CASE, FAILED CONVOY CAN NOT RECEIVE HOLD SUPPORT</h4></a>
<p>If a convoy fails because of disruption of the convoy or when the right convoy
orders are not given, then the army to be convoyed can not receive support in
hold, since it still tried to move.
<p><pre>
Austria:
F Ionian Sea Hold
A Serbia Supports A Albania - Greece
A Albania - Greece

Turkey:
A Greece - Naples
A Bulgaria Supports A Greece
</pre>
<p>There was a possible convoy from Greece to Naples, before the orders were
made public (via the Ionian Sea). This means that the order of Greece to Naples
should never be treated as illegal order and be changed in a hold order able to
receive hold support (see also issue <a href="#VI.A">VI.A</a>). Therefore,
the support in Bulgaria fails and the army in Greece is dislodged by the army
in Albania.

<a name="6.D.9"><h4>6.D.9. TEST CASE, SUPPORT TO MOVE ON HOLDING UNIT NOT ALLOWED</h4></a>
<p>A unit that is holding can not receive a support in moving.
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Venice - Trieste
A Tyrolia Supports A Venice - Trieste

Austria:
A Albania Supports A Trieste - Serbia
A Trieste Hold
</pre>
<p>The support of the army in Albania fails and the army in Trieste is dislodged
by the army from Venice.

<a name="6.D.10"><h4>6.D.10. TEST CASE, SELF DISLODGMENT PROHIBITED</h4></a>
<p>A unit may not dislodge a unit of the same great power.
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Berlin Hold
F Kiel - Berlin
A Munich Supports F Kiel - Berlin
</pre>
<p>Move to Berlin fails.

<a name="6.D.11"><h4>6.D.11. TEST CASE, NO SELF DISLODGMENT OF RETURNING UNIT</h4></a>
<p>Idem.
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Berlin - Prussia
F Kiel - Berlin
A Munich Supports F Kiel - Berlin

Russia:
A Warsaw - Prussia
</pre>
<p>Army in Berlin bounces, but is not dislodged by own unit.

<a name="6.D.12"><h4>6.D.12. TEST CASE, SUPPORTING A FOREIGN UNIT TO DISLODGE OWN UNIT PROHIBITED</h4></a>
<p>You may not help another power in dislodging your own unit.
<p><pre>
Austria:
F Trieste Hold
A Vienna Supports A Venice - Trieste

Italy:
A Venice - Trieste
</pre>
<p>No dislodgment of fleet in Trieste.

<a name="6.D.13"><h4>6.D.13. TEST CASE, SUPPORTING A FOREIGN UNIT TO DISLODGE A RETURNING OWN UNIT PROHIBITED</h4></a>
<p>Idem.
<p><pre>
Austria:
F Trieste - Adriatic Sea
A Vienna Supports A Venice - Trieste

Italy:
A Venice - Trieste
F Apulia - Adriatic Sea
</pre>
<p>No dislodgment of fleet in Trieste.

<h4><a name="6.D.14">6.D.14. TEST CASE, SUPPORTING A FOREIGN UNIT IS NOT ENOUGH TO PREVENT DISLODGEMENT</h4></a>
<p>If a foreign unit has enough support to dislodge your unit, you may not prevent that dislodgement by supporting the attack.
<p><pre>
Austria:
F Trieste Hold
A Vienna Supports A Venice - Trieste

Italy:
A Venice - Trieste
A Tyrolia Supports A Venice - Trieste
F Adriatic Sea Supports A Venice - Trieste
</pre>
<p>The fleet in Trieste is dislodged.

<a name="6.D.15"><h4>6.D.15. TEST CASE, DEFENDER CAN NOT CUT SUPPORT FOR ATTACK ON ITSELF</h4></a>
<p>A unit that is attacked by a supported unit can not prevent dislodgement by guessing
which of the units will do the support.
<p><pre>
Russia:
F Constantinople Supports F Black Sea - Ankara
F Black Sea - Ankara

Turkey:
F Ankara - Constantinople
</pre>
<p>The support of Constantinople is not cut and the fleet in Ankara
is dislodged by the fleet in the Black Sea.

a name="6.D.16"><h4>6.D.16. TEST CASE, CONVOYING A UNIT DISLODGING A UNIT OF SAME POWER IS ALLOWED</h4></a>
<p>It is allowed to convoy a foreign unit that dislodges your own unit is
allowed.
<p><pre>
England:
A London Hold
F North Sea Convoys A Belgium - London

France:
F English Channel Supports A Belgium - London
A Belgium - London
</pre>
<p>The English army in London is dislodged by the French army
coming from Belgium.

<a name="6.D.17"><h4>6.D.17. TEST CASE, DISLODGEMENT CUTS SUPPORTS</h4></a>
<p>The famous dislodge rule.
<p><pre>
Russia:
F Constantinople Supports F Black Sea - Ankara
F Black Sea - Ankara

Turkey:
F Ankara - Constantinople
A Smyrna Supports F Ankara - Constantinople
A Armenia - Ankara
</pre>
<p>The Russian fleet in Constantinople is dislodged. This cuts the support
to from Black Sea to Ankara. Black Sea will bounce with the army from
Armenia.

<a name="6.D.18"><h4>6.D.18. TEST CASE, A SURVIVING UNIT WILL SUSTAIN SUPPORT</h4></a>
<p>Idem. But now with an additional hold that prevents dislodgement.
<p><pre>
Russia:
F Constantinople Supports F Black Sea - Ankara
F Black Sea - Ankara
A Bulgaria Supports F Constantinople

Turkey:
F Ankara - Constantinople
A Smyrna Supports F Ankara - Constantinople
A Armenia - Ankara
</pre>
<p>The Russian fleet in the Black Sea will dislodge the Turkish fleet
in Ankara.

<a name="6.D.19"><h4>6.D.19. TEST CASE, EVEN WHEN SURVIVING IS IN ALTERNATIVE WAY</h4></a>
<p>Now, the dislodgement is prevented because the supports comes from
a Russian army:
<p><pre>
Russia:
F Constantinople Supports F Black Sea - Ankara
F Black Sea - Ankara
A Smyrna Supports F Ankara - Constantinople

Turkey:
F Ankara - Constantinople
</pre>
<p>The Russian fleet in Constantinople is not dislodged, because
one of the support is of Russian origin. The support from
Black Sea to Ankara will sustain and the fleet in Ankara will
be dislodged.

<a name="6.D.20"><h4>6.D.20. TEST CASE, UNIT CAN NOT CUT SUPPORT OF ITS OWN COUNTRY</h4></a>
<p>Although this is not mentioned in all rulebooks, it is generally
accepted that when a unit attacks another unit of the same
Great Power, it will not cut support.
<p><pre>
England:
F London Supports F North Sea - English Channel
F North Sea - English Channel
A Yorkshire - London

France:
F English Channel Hold
</pre>
<p>The army in York does not cut support. This means that the fleet
in the English Channel is dislodged by the fleet in the North Sea.

<a name="6.D.21"><h4>6.D.21. TEST CASE, DISLODGING DOES NOT CANCEL A SUPPORT CUT</h4></a>
<p>Sometimes there is the question whether a dislodged moving unit
does not cut support (similar to the dislodge rule). This is not
the case.
<p><pre>
Austria:
F Trieste Hold

Italy:
A Venice - Trieste
A Tyrolia Supports A Venice - Trieste

Germany:
A Munich - Tyrolia

Russia:
A Silesia - Munich
A Berlin Supports A Silesia - Munich
</pre>
<p>Although the German army is dislodged, it still cuts the Italian support.
That means that the Austrian Fleet is not dislodged.

<a name="6.D.22"><h4>6.D.22. TEST CASE, IMPOSSIBLE FLEET MOVE CAN NOT BE SUPPORTED</h4></a>
<p>If a fleet tries moves to a land area it seems pointless to support the fleet,
since the move will fail anyway. However, in such case, the support is also invalid
for defense purposes.
<p><pre>
Germany:
F Kiel - Munich
A Burgundy Supports F Kiel - Munich

Russia:
A Munich - Kiel
A Berlin Supports A Munich - Kiel
</pre>
The German move from Kiel to Munich is illegal (fleets can not go to
Munich). Therefore, the support from Burgundy fails and the Russian army
in Munich will dislodge the fleet in Kiel. Note that the failing of the
support is not explicitly mentioned in the rulebooks (the DPTG is more
clear about this point). If you take the rulebooks very literally, you
might conclude that the fleet in Munich is not dislodged,
but this is an incorrect interpretation.

<a name="6.D.23"><h4>6.D.23. TEST CASE, IMPOSSIBLE COAST MOVE CAN NOT BE SUPPORTED</h4></a>
<p>Comparable with the previous test case, but now the fleet move is impossible
for coastal reasons.
<p><pre>
Italy:
F Gulf of Lyon - Spain(sc)
F Western Mediterranean Supports F Gulf of Lyon - Spain(sc)

France:
F Spain(nc) - Gulf of Lyon
F Marseilles Supports F Spain(nc) - Gulf of Lyon
</pre>
<p>The French move from Spain North Coast to Gulf of Lyon is illegal (wrong
coast). Therefore, the support from Marseilles fails and the fleet in Spain is
dislodged.

<a name="6.D.24"><h4>6.D.24. TEST CASE, IMPOSSIBLE ARMY MOVE CAN NOT BE SUPPORTED</h4></a>
<p>Comparable with the previous test case, but now an army tries to move into
sea and the support is used in a beleaguered garrison.
<p><pre>
France:
A Marseilles - Gulf of Lyon
F Spain(sc) Supports A Marseilles - Gulf of Lyon

Italy:
F Gulf of Lyon Hold

Turkey:
F Tyrrhenian Sea Supports F Western Mediterranean - Gulf of Lyon
F Western Mediterranean - Gulf of Lyon
</pre>
<p>The French move from Marseilles to Gulf of Lyon is illegal (an army can not
go to sea). Therefore, the support from Spain fails and there is no beleaguered
garrison. The fleet in the Gulf of Lyon is dislodged by the Turkish fleet in
the Western Mediterranean.

<a name="6.D.25"><h4>6.D.25. TEST CASE, FAILING HOLD SUPPORT CAN BE SUPPORTED</h4></a>
<p>If an adjudicator fails on one of the previous three test cases, then the
bug should be removed with care. A failing move can not be supported, but
a failing hold support, because of some preconditions (unmatching order) can still
be supported.
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Berlin Supports A Prussia
F Kiel Supports A Berlin

Russia:
F Baltic Sea Supports A Prussia - Berlin
A Prussia - Berlin
</pre>
<p>Although the support of Berlin on Prussia fails (because of unmatching orders),
the support of Kiel on Berlin is still valid. So, Berlin will not be dislodged.

<a name="6.D.26"><h4>6.D.26. TEST CASE, FAILING MOVE SUPPORT CAN BE SUPPORTED</h4></a>
<p>Similar as the previous test case, but now with an unmatched support to move.
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Berlin Supports A Prussia - Silesia
F Kiel Supports A Berlin

Russia:
F Baltic Sea Supports A Prussia - Berlin
A Prussia - Berlin
</pre>
<p>Again, Berlin will not be dislodged.

<a name="6.D.27"><h4>6.D.27. TEST CASE, FAILING CONVOY CAN BE SUPPORTED</h4></a>
<p>Similar as the previous test case, but now with an unmatched convoy.
<p><pre>
England:
F Sweden - Baltic Sea
F Denmark Supports F Sweden - Baltic Sea

Germany:
A Berlin Hold

Russia:
F Baltic Sea Convoys A Berlin - Livonia
F Prussia Supports F Baltic Sea
</pre>
<p>The convoy order in the Baltic Sea is unmatched and fails. However, the
support of Prussia on the Baltic Sea is still valid and the fleet in the
Baltic Sea is not dislodged.

<a name="6.D.28"><h4>6.D.28. TEST CASE, IMPOSSIBLE MOVE AND SUPPORT</h4></a>
<p>If a move is impossible then it can be treated as "illegal", which makes
a hold support possible.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Budapest Supports F Rumania

Russia:
F Rumania - Holland

Turkey:
F Black Sea - Rumania
A Bulgaria Supports F Black Sea - Rumania
</pre>
<p>The move of the Russian fleet is impossible. But the question is,
whether it is "illegal" (see issue <a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>). If
the move is "illegal" it must be ignored and that makes the hold support
of the army in Budapest valid and the fleet in Rumania will not be dislodged.
<p><i>I prefer that the move is "illegal", which means that the fleet
in the Black Sea does not dislodge the supported Russian fleet.</i>

<a name="6.D.29"><h4>6.D.29. TEST CASE, MOVE TO IMPOSSIBLE COAST AND SUPPORT</h4></a>
<p>Similar to the previous test case, but now the move can be "illegal" because
of the wrong coast.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Budapest Supports F Rumania

Russia:
F Rumania - Bulgaria(sc)

Turkey:
F Black Sea - Rumania
A Bulgaria Supports F Black Sea - Rumania
</pre>
<p>Again the move of the Russian fleet is impossible. However, some
people might correct the coast (see issue <a href="#4.B.3">4.B.3</a>).
If the coast is not corrected, again the question is
whether it is "illegal" (see issue <a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>). If
the move is "illegal" it must be ignored and that makes the hold support
of the army in Budapest valid and the fleet in Rumania will not be dislodged.
<p><i>I prefer that unambiguous orders are not changed and that the
move is "illegal". That means that the fleet in the Black Sea does
not dislodge the supported Russian fleet.</i>

<a name="6.D.30"><h4>6.D.30. TEST CASE, MOVE WITHOUT COAST AND SUPPORT</h4></a>
<p>Similar to the previous test case, but now the move can be "illegal" because
of missing coast.
<p><pre>
Italy:
F Aegean Sea Supports F Constantinople

Russia:
F Constantinople - Bulgaria

Turkey:
F Black Sea - Constantinople
A Bulgaria Supports F Black Sea - Constantinople
</pre>
<p>Again the order to the Russian fleet is with problems, because it
does not specify the coast, while both coasts of Bulgaria are possible.
If no default coast is taken (see issue <a href="#4.B.1">4.B.1</a>),
then also here it must be decided whether the order is "illegal" (see
issue <a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>). If the move is "illegal" it must
be ignored and that makes the hold support of the fleet in the
Aegean Sea valid and the Russian fleet will not be dislodged.
<p><i>I don't like default coasts and I prefer that the move is
"illegal". That means that the fleet
in the Black Sea does not dislodge the supported Russian fleet.</i>

<a name="6.D.31"><h4>6.D.31. TEST CASE, A TRICKY IMPOSSIBLE SUPPORT</h4></a>
<p>A support order can be impossible for complex reasons.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Rumania - Armenia

Turkey:
F Black Sea Supports A Rumania - Armenia
</pre>
<p>Although the army in Rumania can move to Armenia and
the fleet in the Black Sea can also go to Armenia, the
support is still not possible. The reason is that the
only possible convoy is through the Black Sea and a fleet
can not convoy and support at the same time.
<p>This is relevant for computer programs that show only the
possible orders. In the list of possible orders, the support
as given to the fleet in the Black Sea, should not be listed.
Furthermore, if the fleet in the Black Sea gets a second order,
then this may fail, because of double orders (although it can
also be ruled differently, see issue <a href="#4.D.3">4.D.3</a>).
However, when the support order is considered "illegal"
(see issue <a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>), then this impossible
support must be ignored and the second order must be carried out.
<p><i>I prefer that impossible orders are "illegal" and ignored.
If there would be a second order for the fleet in the Black Sea,
that order should be carried out.</i>

<a name="6.D.32"><h4>6.D.32. TEST CASE, A MISSING FLEET</h4></a>
<p>The previous test cases contained an order that was impossible
even when some other pieces on the board where changed. In this
test case, the order is impossible, but only for that situation.
<p><pre>
England:
F Edinburgh Supports A Liverpool - Yorkshire
A Liverpool - Yorkshire

France:
F London Supports A Yorkshire

Germany:
A Yorkshire - Holland
</pre>
<p>The German order to Yorkshire can not be executed, because
there is no fleet in the North Sea. In other situations (where
there is a fleet in the North Sea), the exact same order would
be possible. It should be determined whether this is "illegal"
(see issue <a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>) or not. If it is illegal, then
the order should be ignored and the support of the French fleet
in London succeeds. This means that the army in Yorkshire is
not dislodged.
<p><i>I prefer that impossible orders, even if it is only
impossible for the current situation, are "illegal" and ignored.
The army in Yorkshire is not dislodged.</i>

<a name="6.D.33"><h4>6.D.33. TEST CASE, UNWANTED SUPPORT ALLOWED</h4></a>
<p>A self stand-off can be broken by an unwanted support.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Serbia - Budapest
A Vienna - Budapest

Russia:
A Galicia Supports A Serbia - Budapest

Turkey:
A Bulgaria - Serbia
</pre>
<p>Due to the Russian support, the army in Serbia advances to
Budapest. This enables Turkey to capture Serbia with the army
in Bulgaria.

<a name="6.D.34"><h4>6.D.34. TEST CASE, SUPPORT TARGETING OWN AREA NOT ALLOWED</h4></a>
Support targeting the area where the supporting unit is standing, is illegal.
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Berlin - Prussia
A Silesia Supports A Berlin - Prussia
F Baltic Sea Supports A Berlin - Prussia

Italy:
A Prussia Supports Livonia - Prussia

Russia:
A Warsaw Supports A Livonia - Prussia
A Livonia - Prussia
</pre>
<p>Russia and Italy wanted to get rid of the Italian army in
Prussia (to build an Italian fleet somewhere else). However,
they didn't want a possible German attack on Prussia to succeed.
They invented this odd order of Italy. It was intended that the
attack of the army in Livonia would have strength three, so it
would be capable to prevent the possible German attack to succeed. However,
the order of Italy is illegal, because a unit may only support to
an area where the unit can go by itself. A unit can't go to the area
it is already standing, so the Italian order is illegal and the
German move from Berlin succeeds. Even if it would be legal,
the German move from Berlin would still succeed,
because the support of Prussia is cut by Livonia and Berlin.

<a name="6.E"><h3>6.E. TEST CASES, HEAD TO HEAD BATTLES AND BELEAGUERED GARRISON</h3></a>

<a name="6.E.1"><h4>6.E.1. TEST CASE, DISLODGED UNIT HAS NO EFFECT ON ATTACKERS AREA</h4></a>
<p>An army can follow.
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Berlin - Prussia
F Kiel - Berlin
A Silesia Supports A Berlin - Prussia

Russia:
A Prussia - Berlin
</pre>
<p>The army in Kiel will move to Berlin.

<a name="6.E.2"><h4>6.E.2. TEST CASE, NO SELF DISLODGEMENT IN HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE</h4></a>
<p>Self dislodgement is not allowed. This also counts for head to head battles.
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Berlin - Kiel
F Kiel - Berlin
A Munich Supports A Berlin - Kiel
</pre>
<p>No unit will move.

<a name="6.E.3"><h4>6.E.3. TEST CASE, NO HELP IN DISLODGING OWN UNIT</h4></a>
<p>To help a foreign power to dislodge own unit in head to head battle is not
possible.
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Berlin - Kiel
A Munich Supports F Kiel - Berlin

England:
F Kiel - Berlin
</pre>
<p>No unit will move.

<a name="6.E.4"><h4>6.E.4. TEST CASE, NON-DISLODGED LOSER HAS STILL EFFECT</h4></a>
<p>If in an unbalanced head to head battle the loser is not
dislodged, it has still effect on the area of the attacker.
<p><pre>
Germany:
F Holland - North Sea
F Helgoland Bight Supports F Holland - North Sea
F Skagerrak Supports F Holland - North Sea

France:
F North Sea - Holland
F Belgium Supports F North Sea - Holland

England:
F Edinburgh Supports F Norwegian Sea - North Sea
F Yorkshire Supports F Norwegian Sea - North Sea
F Norwegian Sea - North Sea

Austria:
A Kiel Supports A Ruhr - Holland
A Ruhr - Holland
</pre>
<p>The French fleet in the North Sea is not dislodged due to the beleaguered garrison.
Therefore, the Austrian army in Ruhr will not move to Holland.

<a name="6.E.5"><h4>6.E.5. TEST CASE, LOSER DISLODGED BY ANOTHER ARMY HAS STILL EFFECT</h4></a>
<p>If in an unbalanced head to head battle the loser is dislodged
by a unit not part of the head to head battle, the loser has
still effect on the place of the winner of the head to head battle.
<p><pre>
Germany:
F Holland - North Sea
F Helgoland Bight Supports F Holland - North Sea
F Skagerrak Supports F Holland - North Sea

France:
F North Sea - Holland
F Belgium Supports F North Sea - Holland

England:
F Edinburgh Supports F Norwegian Sea - North Sea
F Yorkshire Supports F Norwegian Sea - North Sea
F Norwegian Sea - North Sea
F London Supports F Norwegian Sea - North Sea

Austria:
A Kiel Supports A Ruhr - Holland
A Ruhr - Holland
</pre>
<p>The French fleet in the North Sea is dislodged but not by the German
fleet in Holland. Therefore, the French fleet can still prevent that the
Austrian army in Ruhr will move to Holland. So, the Austrian move in
Ruhr fails and the German fleet in Holland is not dislodged.

<a name="6.E.6"><h4>6.E.6. TEST CASE, NOT DISLODGE BECAUSE OF OWN SUPPORT HAS STILL EFFECT</h4></a>
<p>If in an unbalanced head to head battle the loser is not dislodged
because the winner had help of a unit of the loser, the loser has
still effect on the area of the winner.
<p><pre>
Germany:
F Holland - North Sea
F Helgoland Bight Supports F Holland - North Sea

France:
F North Sea - Holland
F Belgium Supports F North Sea - Holland
F English Channel Supports F Holland - North Sea

Austria:
A Kiel Supports A Ruhr - Holland
A Ruhr - Holland
</pre>
<p>Although the German force from Holland to North Sea is one larger than the
French force from North Sea to Holland, the French fleet in the North Sea is not
dislodged, because one of the supports on the German movement is French.
Therefore, the Austrian army in Ruhr will not move to Holland.

<a name="6.E.7"><h4>6.E.7. TEST CASE, NO SELF DISLODGEMENT WITH BELEAGUERED GARRISON</h4></a>
<p>An attempt to self dislodgement can be combined with a beleaguered
garrison. Such self dislodgment is still not possible.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Hold
F Yorkshire Supports F Norway - North Sea

Germany:
F Holland Supports F Helgoland Bight - North Sea
F Helgoland Bight - North Sea

Russia:
F Skagerrak Supports F Norway - North Sea
F Norway - North Sea
</pre>
<p>Although the Russians beat the German attack (with the support
of Yorkshire) and the two Russian fleets are enough to dislodge
the fleet in the North Sea, the fleet in the North Sea is not dislodged,
since it would not be dislodged if the English fleet in Yorkshire
would not give support. According to the DPTG the fleet in
the North Sea would be dislodged. The DPTG is incorrect in this case.

<a name="6.E.8"><h4>6.E.8. TEST CASE, NO SELF DISLODGEMENT WITH BELEAGUERED GARRISON AND HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE</h4></a>
<p>Similar to the previous test case, but now the beleaguered fleet is also
engaged in a head to head battle.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea - Norway
F Yorkshire Supports F Norway - North Sea

Germany:
F Holland Supports F Helgoland Bight - North Sea
F Helgoland Bight - North Sea

Russia:
F Skagerrak Supports F Norway - North Sea
F Norway - North Sea
</pre>
<p>Again, none of the fleets move.

<a name="6.E.9"><h4>6.E.9. TEST CASE, ALMOST SELF DISLODGEMENT WITH BELEAGUERED GARRISON</h4></a>
<p>Similar to the previous test case, but now the beleaguered fleet is moving away.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea - Norwegian Sea
F Yorkshire Supports F Norway - North Sea

Germany:
F Holland Supports F Helgoland Bight - North Sea
F Helgoland Bight - North Sea

Russia:
F Skagerrak Supports F Norway - North Sea
F Norway - North Sea
</pre>
<p>Both the fleet in the North Sea and the fleet in Norway move.

<a name="6.E.10"><h4>6.E.10. TEST CASE, ALMOST CIRCULAR MOVEMENT WITH NO SELF DISLODGEMENT WITH BELEAGUERED GARRISON</h4></a>
<p>Similar to the previous test case, but now the beleaguered fleet is in circular movement
with the weaker attacker. So, the circular movement fails.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea - Denmark
F Yorkshire Supports F Norway - North Sea

Germany:
F Holland Supports F Helgoland Bight - North Sea
F Helgoland Bight - North Sea
F Denmark - Helgoland Bight

Russia:
F Skagerrak Supports F Norway - North Sea
F Norway - North Sea
</pre>
<p>There is no movement of fleets.

<a name="6.E.11"><h4>6.E.11. TEST CASE, NO SELF DISLODGEMENT WITH BELEAGUERED GARRISON, UNIT SWAP WITH ADJACENT CONVOYING AND TWO COASTS</h4></a>
<p>Similar to the previous test case, but now the beleaguered fleet is in a unit swap
with the stronger attacker. So, the unit swap succeeds. To make the situation more complex,
the swap is on an area with two coasts.
<p><pre>
France:
A Spain - Portugal via Convoy
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Spain - Portugal
F Gulf of Lyon Supports F Portugal - Spain(nc)

Germany:
A Marseilles Supports A Gascony - Spain
A Gascony - Spain

Italy:
F Portugal - Spain(nc)
F Western Mediterranean Supports F Portugal - Spain(nc)
</pre>
<p>The unit swap succeeds. Note that due to the success of the swap, there is no beleaguered
garrison anymore.

<a name="6.E.12"><h4>6.E.12. TEST CASE, SUPPORT ON ATTACK ON OWN UNIT CAN BE USED FOR OTHER MEANS</h4></a>
<p>A support on an attack on your own unit has still effect. It
can prevent that another army will dislodge the unit.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Budapest - Rumania
A Serbia Supports A Vienna - Budapest

Italy:
A Vienna - Budapest

Russia:
A Galicia - Budapest
A Rumania Supports A Galicia - Budapest
</pre>
<p>The support of Serbia on the Italian army prevents that the
Russian army in Galicia will advance. No army will move.

<a name="6.E.13"><h4>6.E.13. TEST CASE, THREE WAY BELEAGUERED GARRISON</h4></a>
<p>In a beleaguered garrison from three sides, the adjudicator may not
let two attacks fail and then let the third succeed.
<p><pre>
England:
F Edinburgh Supports F Yorkshire - North Sea
F Yorkshire - North Sea

France:
F Belgium - North Sea
F English Channel Supports F Belgium - North Sea

Germany:
F North Sea Hold

Russia:
F Norwegian Sea - North Sea
F Norway Supports F Norwegian Sea - North Sea
</pre>
<p>None of the fleets move. The German fleet in the North Sea is not
dislodged.

<a name="6.E.14"><h4>6.E.14. TEST CASE, ILLEGAL HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE CAN STILL DEFEND</h4></a>
<p>If in a head to head battle, one of the units makes an illegal
move, than that unit has still the possibility to defend against attacks
with strength of one.
<p><pre>
England:
A Liverpool - Edinburgh

Russia:
F Edinburgh - Liverpool
</pre>
<p>The move of the Russian fleet is illegal, but can still prevent
the English army to enter Edinburgh. So, none of the units move.

<a name="6.E.15"><h4>6.E.15. TEST CASE, THE FRIENDLY HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE</h4></a>
<p>In this case both units in the head to head battle prevent that the other
one is dislodged.
<p><pre>
England:
F Holland Supports A Ruhr - Kiel
A Ruhr - Kiel

France:
A Kiel - Berlin
A Munich Supports A Kiel - Berlin
A Silesia Supports A Kiel - Berlin

Germany:
A Berlin - Kiel
F Denmark Supports A Berlin - Kiel
F Helgoland Bight Supports A Berlin - Kiel

Russia:
F Baltic Sea Supports A Prussia - Berlin
A Prussia - Berlin
</pre>
<p>None of the moves succeeds. This case is especially difficult for
sequence based adjudicators. They will start adjudicating the head
to head battle and continue to adjudicate the attack on one of the
units part of the head to head battle. In this process, one of the
sides of the head to head battle might be cancelled out. This happens
in the DPTG. If this is adjudicated according to the DPTG, the unit
in Ruhr or in Prussia will advance (depending on the order the units
are adjudicated). This is clearly a bug in the DPTG.

<a name="6.F"><h3>6.F. TEST CASES, CONVOYS</h3></a>

<a name="6.F.1"><h4>6.F.1. TEST CASE, NO CONVOY IN COASTAL AREAS</h4></a>
<p>A fleet in a coastal area may not convoy.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
A Greece - Sevastopol
F Aegean Sea Convoys A Greece - Sevastopol
F Constantinople Convoys A Greece - Sevastopol
F Black Sea Convoys A Greece - Sevastopol
</pre>
<p>The convoy in Constantinople is not possible. So, the army in Greece
will not move to Sevastopol.

<a name="6.F.2"><h4>6.F.2. TEST CASE, AN ARMY BEING CONVOYED CAN BOUNCE AS NORMAL</h4></a>
<p>Armies being convoyed bounce on other units just as armies that are not being convoyed.
<p><pre>
England:
F English Channel Convoys A London - Brest
A London - Brest

France:
A Paris - Brest
</pre>
<p>The English army in London bounces on the French army in Paris. Both units do not
move.

<a name="6.F.3"><h4>6.F.3. TEST CASE, AN ARMY BEING CONVOYED CAN RECEIVE SUPPORT</h4></a>
<p>Armies being convoyed can receive support as in any other move.
<p><pre>
England:
F English Channel Convoys A London - Brest
A London - Brest
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports A London - Brest

France:
A Paris - Brest
</pre>
<p>The army in London receives support and beats the army in Paris. This means
that the army London will end in Brest and the French army in Paris stays in Paris.

<a name="6.F.4"><h4>6.F.4. TEST CASE, AN ATTACKED CONVOY IS NOT DISRUPTED</h4></a>
<p>A convoy can only be disrupted by dislodging the fleets. Attacking is not
sufficient.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Holland
A London - Holland

Germany:
F Skagerrak - North Sea
</pre>
<p>The army in London will successfully convoy and end in Holland.

<a name="6.F.5"><h4>6.F.5. TEST CASE, A BELEAGUERED CONVOY IS NOT DISRUPTED</h4></a>
<p>Even when a convoy is in a beleaguered garrison it is not disrupted.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Holland
A London - Holland

France:
F English Channel - North Sea
F Belgium Supports F English Channel - North Sea

Germany:
F Skagerrak - North Sea
F Denmark Supports F Skagerrak - North Sea
</pre>
<p>The army in London will successfully convoy and end in Holland.

<a name="6.F.6"><h4>6.F.6. TEST CASE, DISLODGED CONVOY DOES NOT CUT SUPPORT</h4></a>
<p>When a fleet of a convoy is dislodged, the convoy is completely
cancelled. So, no support is cut.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Holland
A London - Holland

Germany:
A Holland Supports A Belgium
A Belgium Supports A Holland
F Helgoland Bight Supports F Skagerrak - North Sea
F Skagerrak - North Sea

France:
A Picardy - Belgium
A Burgundy Supports A Picardy - Belgium
</pre>
<p>The hold order of Holland on Belgium will sustain and Belgium
will not be dislodged by the French in Picardy.

<a name="6.F.7"><h4>6.F.7. TEST CASE, DISLODGED CONVOY DOES NOT CAUSE CONTESTED AREA</h4></a>
<p>When a fleet of a convoy is dislodged, the landing area is
not contested, so other units can retreat to that area.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Holland
A London - Holland

Germany:
F Helgoland Bight Supports F Skagerrak - North Sea
F Skagerrak - North Sea
</pre>
<p>The dislodged English fleet can retreat to Holland.

<a name="6.F.8"><h4>6.F.8. TEST CASE, DISLODGED CONVOY DOES NOT CAUSE A BOUNCE</h4></a>
<p>When a fleet of a convoy is dislodged, then there will be
no bounce in the landing area.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Holland
A London - Holland

Germany:
F Helgoland Bight Supports F Skagerrak - North Sea
F Skagerrak - North Sea
A Belgium - Holland
</pre>
<p>The army in Belgium will not bounce and move to Holland.

<a name="6.F.9"><h4>6.F.9. TEST CASE, DISLODGE OF MULTI-ROUTE CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>When a fleet of a convoy with multiple routes is dislodged,
the result depends on the rulebook that is used.
<p><pre>
England:
F English Channel Convoys A London - Belgium
F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium
A London - Belgium

France:
F Brest Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel
</pre>
<p>The French fleet in Mid Atlantic Ocean will dislodge the convoying
fleet in the English Channel. If the 1971 rules are used (see issue
<a href="#4.A.1">4.A.1</a>), this will disrupt the convoy and the army will
stay in London. When the 1982 or 2000 rulebook is used (<i>which I prefer</i>)
the army can still go via the North Sea and the convoy succeeds and
the London army will end in Belgium.

<a name="6.F.10"><h4>6.F.10. TEST CASE, DISLODGE OF MULTI-ROUTE CONVOY WITH FOREIGN FLEET</h4></a>
<p>When the 1971 rulebook is used "unwanted" multi-route convoys are possible.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium
A London - Belgium

Germany:
F English Channel Convoys A London - Belgium

France:
F Brest Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel
</pre>
<p>If the 1982 or 2000 rulebook is used (<i>which I prefer</i>), it makes no
difference that the convoying fleet in the English Channel is German.
It will take the convoy via the North Sea anyway and the army in London
will end in Belgium. However, when the 1971 rules are used, the German
convoy is "unwanted". According to the DPTG the German fleet should be
ignored in the English convoy, since there is a convoy path with only
English fleets. That means that the convoy is not disrupted and the
English army in London will end in Belgium. See also issue <a href="#4.A.1">4.A.1</a>.

<a name="6.F.11"><h4>6.F.11. TEST CASE, DISLODGE OF MULTI-ROUTE CONVOY WITH ONLY FOREIGN FLEETS</h4></a>
<p>When the 1971 rulebook is used, "unwanted" convoys can not be
ignored in all cases.
<p><pre>
England:
A London - Belgium

Germany:
F English Channel Convoys A London - Belgium

Russia:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium

France:
F Brest Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel
</pre>
<p>If the 1982 or 2000 rulebook is used (<i>which I prefer</i>), it makes no
difference that the convoying fleets are not English. It will take the
convoy via the North Sea anyway and the army in London will end in Belgium.
<p>However, when the 1971 rules are used, the situation is
different. Since both the fleet in the English Channel as the fleet
in North Sea are not English, it can not be concluded that the
German fleet is "unwanted". Therefore, one of the routes of the convoy
is disrupted and that means that the complete convoy is disrupted.
The army in London will stay in London. See also issue <a href="#4.A.1">4.A.1</a>.

<a name="6.F.12"><h4>6.F.12. TEST CASE, DISLODGED CONVOYING FLEET NOT ON ROUTE</h4></a>
<p>When the rule is used that convoys are disrupted when one of the routes
is disrupted (see issue <a href="#4.A.1">4.A.1</a>), the convoy is not necessarily
disrupted when one of the fleets ordered to convoy is dislodged.
<p><pre>
England:
F English Channel Convoys A London - Belgium
A London - Belgium
F Irish Sea Convoys A London - Belgium

France:
F North Atlantic Ocean Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Irish Sea
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Irish Sea
</pre>
<p>Even when convoys are disrupted when one of the routes is disrupted
(see issue <a href="#4.A.1">4.A.1</a>), the convoy from London to Belgium
will still succeed, since the dislodged fleet in the Irish Sea is not
part of any route, although it can be reached from the starting point
London.

<a name="6.F.13"><h4>6.F.13. TEST CASE, THE UNWANTED ALTERNATIVE</h4></a>
<p>This situation is not difficult to adjudicate, but it shows that
even if someone wants to convoy, the player might not want an alternative
route for the convoy.
<p><pre>
England:
A London - Belgium
F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium

France:
F English Channel Convoys A London - Belgium

Germany:
F Holland Supports F Denmark - North Sea
F Denmark - North Sea
</pre>
<p>If France and German are allies, England want to keep its army
in London, to defend the island. An army in Belgium could easily
be destroyed by an alliance of France and Germany. England tries
to be friends with Germany, however France and Germany trick England.
<p>The convoy of the army in London succeeds and the fleet in Denmark
dislodges the fleet in the North Sea.

<a name="6.F.14"><h4>6.F.14. TEST CASE, SIMPLE CONVOY PARADOX</h4></a>
<p>The most common paradox is when the attacked unit
supports an attack on one of the convoying fleets.
<p><pre>
England:
F London Supports F Wales - English Channel
F Wales - English Channel

France:
A Brest - London
F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London
</pre>
<p>This situation depends on how paradoxes are handled (see issue
(<a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>). In case of the 'All Hold' rule
(fully applied, not just as "backup" rule), both the movement of
the English fleet in Wales as the France convoy in Brest
are part of the paradox and fail. In all other rules of
paradoxical convoys (<i>including the Szykman rule which I prefer</i>),
the support of London is not cut. That means that the fleet
in the English Channel is dislodged.

<a name="6.F.15"><h4>6.F.15. TEST CASE, SIMPLE CONVOY PARADOX WITH ADDITIONAL CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>Paradox rules only apply on the paradox core.
<p><pre>
England:
F London Supports F Wales - English Channel
F Wales - English Channel

France:
A Brest - London
F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London

Italy:
F Irish Sea Convoys A North Africa - Wales
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Convoys A North Africa - Wales
A North Africa - Wales
</pre>
<p>The Italian convoy is not part of the paradox core and should
therefore succeed when the move of the fleet in Wales is successful.
This is the case except when the 'All Hold' paradox rule is used
(fully applied, not just as "backup" rule, see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>).
<p><i>I prefer the Szykman rule, so I prefer that both the fleet in
Wales as the army in North Africa succeed in moving.</i>

<a name="6.F.16"><h4>6.F.16. TEST CASE, PANDIN'S PARADOX</h4></a>
<p>In Pandin's paradox, the attacked unit protects the convoying
fleet by a beleaguered garrison.
<p><pre>
England:
F London Supports F Wales - English Channel
F Wales - English Channel

France:
A Brest - London
F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London

Germany:
F North Sea Supports F Belgium - English Channel
F Belgium - English Channel
</pre>
<p>In all the different rules for resolving convoy disruption paradoxes (see
issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>), the support of London is not cut. That means
that the fleet in the English Channel is not dislodged and none of the units
succeed to move.

<a name="6.F.17"><h4>6.F.17. TEST CASE, PANDIN'S EXTENDED PARADOX</h4></a>
<p>In Pandin's extended paradox, the attacked unit protects the convoying
fleet by a beleaguered garrison and the attacked unit can dislodge
the unit that gives the protection.
<p><pre>
England:
F London Supports F Wales - English Channel
F Wales - English Channel

France:
A Brest - London
F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London
F Yorkshire Supports A Brest - London

Germany:
F North Sea Supports F Belgium - English Channel
F Belgium - English Channel
</pre>
<p>When the 1971, 1982 or 2000 rule is used (see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>),
the support of London is not cut. That means that the fleet in the English Channel is
not dislodged. The convoy will succeed and dislodge the fleet in London. You
may argue that this violates the dislodge rule, but the common interpretation
is that the paradox convoy rules take precedence over the dislodge rule.
<p>If the Simon Szykman alternative is used (<i>which I prefer</i>), the
convoy fails and the fleet in London and the English Channel are not
dislodged. When the 'All Hold' (fully applied, not just as "backup" rule)
or the DPTG rule is used, the result is
the same as the Simon Szykman alternative. The involved moves (the move of
the German fleet in Belgium and the convoying army in Brest) fail.

<a name="6.F.18"><h4>6.F.18. TEST CASE, BETRAYAL PARADOX</h4></a>
<p>The betrayal paradox is comparable to Pandin's paradox, but now
the attacked unit direct supports the convoying fleet. Of course,
this will only happen when the player of the attacked unit is
betrayed.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium
A London - Belgium
F English Channel Supports A London - Belgium

France:
F Belgium Supports F North Sea

Germany:
F Helgoland Bight Supports F Skagerrak - North Sea
F Skagerrak - North Sea
</pre>
<p>If the English convoy from London to Belgium is successful,
then it cuts the France support necessary to hold the fleet in the
North Sea (see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>).
<p>The 1971 and 2000 ruling do not give an answer on this.
<p>According to the 1982 ruling the French support on the
North Sea will not be cut. So, the fleet in the North Sea
will not be dislodged by the Germans and the army in London
will dislodge the French army in Belgium.
<p>If the Szykman rule is followed (<i>which I prefer</i>), the move
of the army in London will fail and will not cut support. That
means that the fleet in the North Sea will not be dislodged.
<p>The 'All Hold' rule has the same result as the Szykman rule, but
with a different reason. The move of the army in London and the
move of the German fleet in Skagerrak will fail.
<p>Since a failing convoy does not result in a consistent
resolution, the DPTG gives the same result as the 'All Hold'
rule.

<a name="6.F.19"><h4>6.F.19. TEST CASE, MULTI-ROUTE CONVOY DISRUPTION PARADOX</h4></a>
<p>The situation becomes more complex when the convoy has alternative routes.
<p><pre>
France:
A Tunis - Naples
F Tyrrhenian Sea Convoys A Tunis - Naples
F Ionian Sea Convoys A Tunis - Naples

Italy:
F Naples Supports F Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea
F Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea
</pre>
<p>Now, two issues play a role. The ruling about disruption of
convoys (issue <a href="#4.A.1">4.A.1</a>) and the issue how paradoxes
are resolved (issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>).
<p>If the 1971 rule is used about multi-route convoys (when
one of the routes is disrupted, the convoy fails),
this test case is just a simple paradox. For the 1971,
1982, 2000 and Szykman paradox rule, the support of
the fleet in Naples is not cut and the fleet in Rome
dislodges the fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea. When the
'All Hold' rule is used, both the convoy of the army
in Tunis as the move of the fleet in Rome will fail.
<p>When the 1982 rule is used about multi-route convoy
disruption, then convoys are disrupted when all routes
are disrupted (<i>this is the rule I prefer</i>).
With this rule, the situation becomes paradoxical. According
to the 1971 and 1982 paradox rules, the support given by the
fleet in Naples is not cut, that means that the fleet in the
Tyrrhenian Sea is dislodged.
<p>According to the 2000 ruling the fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea
is not "necessary" for the convoy and the support of Naples
is cut and the fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea is not dislodged.
<p>If the Szykman rule is used (<i>which I prefer</i>), the
'All Hold' rule or the DPTG, then there is no paradoxical
situation. The support of Naples is cut and the fleet in the
Tyrrhenian Sea is not dislodged.

<a name="6.F.20"><h4>6.F.20. TEST CASE, UNWANTED MULTI-ROUTE CONVOY PARADOX</h4></a>
<p>The 1982 paradox rule allows some creative defense.
<p><pre>
France:
A Tunis - Naples
F Tyrrhenian Sea Convoys A Tunis - Naples

Italy:
F Naples Supports F Ionian Sea
F Ionian Sea Convoys A Tunis - Naples

Turkey:
F Aegean Sea Supports F Eastern Mediterranean - Ionian Sea
F Eastern Mediterranean - Ionian Sea
</pre>
<p>Again, two issues play a role. The ruling about disruption of
multi-route convoys (issue <a href="#4.A.1">4.A.1</a>) and the issue
how paradoxes are resolved (issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>).
<p>If the 1971 rule is used about multi-route convoys (when
one of the routes is disrupted, the convoy fails),
the Italian convoy order in the Ionian Sea is not part
of the convoy, because it is a foreign unit (according
to the DPTG). That means that the fleet in the Ionian
Sea is not a 'convoying' fleet. In all rulings the support
of Naples on the Ionian Sea is cut and the fleet in the
Ionian Sea is dislodged by the Turkish fleet in the
Eastern Mediterranean.

<p>When the 1982 rule is used about multi-route convoy
disruption, then convoys are disrupted when all routes
are disrupted (<i>this is the rule I prefer</i>).
With this rule, the situation becomes paradoxical. According
to the 1971 and 1982 paradox rules, the support given by
the fleet in Naples is not cut, that means that the
fleet in the Ionian Sea is not dislodged.
<p>According to the 2000 ruling the fleet in the Ionian Sea is
not "necessary" and the support of Naples is cut and the fleet
in the Ionian Sea is dislodged by the Turkish fleet in the
Eastern Mediterranean.
<p>If the Szykman rule, the 'All Hold' rule or DPTG is used,
then there is no paradoxical situation. The support of Naples is cut
and the fleet in the Ionian Sea is dislodged by the Turkish
fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean.
<p><i>As you can see, the 1982 rules allows the Italian player to
save its fleet in the Ionian Sea with a trick. I do not consider
this trick as normal tactical play. I prefer the Szykman rule as one of the
rules that does not allow this trick. According to this rule the
fleet in the Ionian Sea is dislodged.</i>

<a name="6.F.21"><h4>6.F.21. TEST CASE, DAD'S ARMY CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>The 1982 paradox rule has as side effect that convoying armies
do not cut support in some situations that are not paradoxical.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Edinburgh Supports A Norway - Clyde
F Norwegian Sea Convoys A Norway - Clyde
A Norway - Clyde

France:
F Irish Sea Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - North Atlantic Ocean
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - North Atlantic Ocean

England:
A Liverpool - Clyde via Convoy
F North Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Liverpool - Clyde
F Clyde Supports F North Atlantic Ocean
</pre>
<p>In all rulings, except the 1982 paradox ruling, the support of the
fleet in Clyde on the North Atlantic Ocean is cut and the French
fleet in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean will dislodge the fleet in the
North Atlantic Ocean. This is the preferred way.
<p>However, in the 1982 paradox rule (see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>),
the support of the fleet in Clyde is not cut. That means that the English fleet in
the North Atlantic Ocean is not dislodged.
<p><i>As you can see, the 1982 rule allows England to save its fleet
in the North Atlantic Ocean in a very strange way. Just the support
of Clyde is insufficient (if there is no convoy, the support is cut).
Only the convoy to the area occupied by own unit, can do the trick
in this situation. The embarking of troops in the fleet deceives
the enemy so much that it works as a magic cloak. The enemy is
not able to dislodge the fleet in the North Atlantic Ocean any more.
Of course, this will only work in comedies. I prefer the Szykman
rule as one of the rules that does not allow this trick.
According to this rule (and all other paradox rules),
the fleet in the North Atlantic is just dislodged.</i>

<a name="6.F.22"><h4>6.F.22. TEST CASE, SECOND ORDER PARADOX WITH TWO RESOLUTIONS</h4></a>
<p>Two convoys are involved in a second order paradox.
<p><pre>
England:
F Edinburgh - North Sea
F London Supports F Edinburgh - North Sea

France:
A Brest - London
F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London

Germany:
F Belgium Supports F Picardy - English Channel
F Picardy - English Channel

Russia:
A Norway - Belgium
F North Sea Convoys A Norway - Belgium
</pre>
<p>Without any paradox rule, there are two consistent resolutions.
The supports of the English fleet in London and the German fleet
in Picardy are not cut. That means that the French fleet in the
English Channel and the Russian fleet in the North Sea are
dislodged, which makes it impossible to cut the support.
The other resolution is that the supports of the English fleet in
London the German fleet in Picardy are cut. In that case the
French fleet in the English Channel and the Russian fleet in
the North Sea will survive and will not be dislodged. This
gives the possibility to cut the support.
<p>The 1971 paradox rule and the 2000 rule (see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>)
do not have an answer on this.
<p>According to the 1982 rule, the supports are not cut which means that the
French fleet in the English Channel and the Russian fleet in the
North Sea are dislodged.
<p>The Szykman (<i>which I prefer</i>), has the same result as the 1982
rule. The supports are not cut, the convoying armies fail to move,
the fleet in Picardy dislodges the fleet in English Channel and the fleet
in Edinburgh dislodges the fleet in the North Sea.
<p>The DPTG rule has in this case the same result as the Szykman rule,
because the failing of all convoys is a consistent resolution.
So, the armies in Brest and Norway fail to move, while the fleets in
Edinburgh and Picardy succeed to move.
<p>When the 'All Hold' rule is used, the movement of the armies in
Brest and Norway as the fleets in Edinburgh and Picardy
will fail.

<a name="6.F.23"><h4>6.F.23. TEST CASE, SECOND ORDER PARADOX WITH TWO EXCLUSIVE CONVOYS</h4></a>
<p>In this paradox there are two consistent resolutions, but where the two
convoys do not fail or succeed at the same time. This fact is important for the
DPTG resolution.
<p><pre>
England:
F Edinburgh - North Sea
F Yorkshire Supports F Edinburgh - North Sea

France:
A Brest - London
F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London

Germany:
F Belgium Supports F English Channel
F London Supports F North Sea

Italy:
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel
F Irish Sea Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel

Russia:
A Norway - Belgium
F North Sea Convoys A Norway - Belgium
</pre>
<p>Without any paradox rule, there are two consistent resolutions.
In one resolution, the convoy in the English Channel is dislodged
by the fleet in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean, while the convoy in the
North Sea succeeds. In the other resolution, it is the other way
around. The convoy in the North Sea is dislodged by the fleet in
Edinburgh, while the convoy in the English Channel succeeds.
<p>The 1971 paradox rule and the 2000 rule (see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>)
do not have an answer on this.
<p>According to the 1982 rule, the supports are not cut which means that the
none of the units move.
<p>The Szykman (<i>which I prefer</i>), has the same result as the 1982
rule. The convoying armies fail to move and the supports are not cut.
Because of the failure to cut the support, no fleet succeeds to move.
<p>When the 'All Hold' rule is used, the movement of the armies and the
fleets all fail.
<p>Since there is no consistent resolution where all convoys fail,
the DPTG rule has the same result as the 'All Hold' rule. That means
the movement of all units fail.

<a name="6.F.24"><h4>6.F.24. TEST CASE, SECOND ORDER PARADOX WITH NO RESOLUTION</h4></a>
<p>As first order paradoxes, second order paradoxes come in two
flavors, with two resolutions or no resolution.
<p><pre>
England:
F Edinburgh - North Sea
F London Supports F Edinburgh - North Sea
F Irish Sea - English Channel
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Irish Sea - English Channel

France:
A Brest - London
F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London
F Belgium Supports F English Channel

Russia:
A Norway - Belgium
F North Sea Convoys A Norway - Belgium
</pre>
<p>When no paradox rule is used, there is no consistent resolution.
If the French support in Belgium is cut, the French fleet in the
English Channel will be dislodged. That means that the support
of London will not be cut and the fleet in Edinburgh will dislodge
the Russian fleet in the North Sea. In this way the support in
Belgium is not cut! But if the support in Belgium is not cut,
the Russian fleet in the North Sea will not be dislodged and the
army in Norway can cut the support in Belgium.
<p>The 1971 paradox rule and the 2000 rule (see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>)
do not have an answer on this.
<p>According to the 1982 rule, the supports are not cut which means that
the French fleet in the English Channel will survive and but the
Russian fleet in the North Sea is dislodged.
<p>If the Szykman alternative is used (<i>which I prefer</i>), the supports
are not cut and the convoying armies fail to move, which
has the same result as the 1982 rule in this case.
<p>When the 'All Hold' rule is used, the movement of the armies in
Brest and Norway as the fleets in Edinburgh and the Irish Sea
will fail.
<p>Since there is no consistent resolution where all convoys fail,
the DPTG has in this case the same result as the 'All Hold' rule.

<a name="6.G"><h3>6.G. TEST CASES, CONVOYING TO ADJACENT PLACES</h3></a>

<a name="6.G.1"><h4>6.G.1. TEST CASE, TWO UNITS CAN SWAP PLACES BY CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>The only way to swap two units, is by convoy.
<p><pre>
England:
A Norway - Sweden
F Skagerrak Convoys A Norway - Sweden

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway
</pre>
<p>In most interpretation of the rules, the units in Norway and Sweden will
be swapped. However, if explicit adjacent convoying is used (see issue
<a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>), then
it is just a head to head battle.
<p><i>I prefer the 2000 rules, so the units are swapped.</i>

<a name="6.G.2"><h4>6.G.2. TEST CASE, KIDNAPPING AN ARMY</h4></a>
<p>Germany promised England to support to dislodge the Russian fleet in Sweden
and it promised Russia to support to dislodge the English army in Norway.
Instead, the joking German orders a convoy.
<p><pre>
England:
A Norway - Sweden

Russia:
F Sweden - Norway

Germany:
F Skagerrak Convoys A Norway - Sweden
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>.
<p>When the 1982/2000 rulebook is used (<i>which I prefer</i>), England
has no intent to swap and it is just a head to head
battle were both units will fail to move. When explicit adjacent
convoying is used (DPTG), the English move is not
a convoy and again it just a head to head battle were both units will
fail to move. In all other interpretations, the army in Norway will be convoyed
and swap its place with the fleet in Sweden.

<a name="6.G.3"><h4>6.G.3. TEST CASE, KIDNAPPING WITH A DISRUPTED CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>When kidnapping of armies is allowed, a move can be sabotaged
by a fleet that is almost certainly dislodged.
<p><pre>
France:
F Brest - English Channel
A Picardy - Belgium
A Burgundy Supports A Picardy - Belgium
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Brest - English Channel

England:
F English Channel Convoys A Picardy - Belgium
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>. If a convoy always
takes precedence over a land route (choice a), the move from
Picardy to Belgium fails. It tries to convoy and the convoy is
disrupted.
<p>For choice b and c, there is no unit moving in opposite direction
for the move of the army in Picardy. For this reason, the move for
the army in Picardy is not by convoy and succeeds over land.
<p>When the 1982 or 2000 rules are used (choice d), then it is not the "intent"
of the French army in Picardy to convoy. The move from Picardy to
Belgium is just a successful move over land.
<p>When explicit adjacent convoying is used (DPTG, choice e),
the order of the French army in Picardy is not a convoy order.
So, it just ordered over land, and that move succeeds.
<p><i>This is an excellent example why the convoy route should
not automatically have priority over the land route. It would just
be annoying for the attacker and this situation is without fun. I prefer the
1982 rule with the 2000 clarification. According to these
rules the move from Picardy succeeds.</i>

<a name="6.G.4"><h4>6.G.4. TEST CASE, KIDNAPPING WITH A DISRUPTED CONVOY AND OPPOSITE MOVE</h4></a>
<p>In the situation of the previous test case it was rather
clear that the army didn't want to take the convoy. But what
if there is an army moving in opposite direction?
<p><pre>
France:
F Brest - English Channel
A Picardy - Belgium
A Burgundy Supports A Picardy - Belgium
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Brest - English Channel

England:
F English Channel Convoys A Picardy - Belgium
A Belgium - Picardy
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>. If a convoy always
takes precedence over a land route (choice a), the move from
Picardy to Belgium fails. It tries to convoy and the convoy is
disrupted.
<p>For choice b the convoy is also taken, because there is a
unit in Belgium moving in opposite direction. This means that
the convoy is disrupted and the move from Picardy to Belgium
fails.
<p>For choice c the convoy is not taken. Although, the unit in
Belgium is moving in opposite direction, the army will not take
a disrupted convoy. So, the move from Picardy to Belgium succeeds.
<p>When the 1982 or 2000 rules are used (choice d), then it is not the "intent"
of the French army in Picardy to convoy. The move from Picardy to
Belgium is just a successful move over land.
<p>When explicit adjacent convoying is used (DPTG, choice e),
the order of the French army in Picardy is not a convoy order.
So, it just ordered over land, and that move succeeds.
<p><i>Again an excellent example why the convoy route should
not automatically have priority over the land route. It would just
be annoying for the attacker and this situation is without fun. I prefer the
1982 rule with the 2000 clarification. According to these
rules the move from Picardy succeeds.</i>

<a name="6.G.5"><h4>6.G.5. TEST CASE, SWAPPING WITH INTENT</h4></a>
<p>When one of the convoying fleets is of the same nationality of
the convoyed army, the "intent" is to convoy.
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Rome - Apulia
F Tyrrhenian Sea Convoys A Apulia - Rome

Turkey:
A Apulia - Rome
F Ionian Sea Convoys A Apulia - Rome
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>. When the 1982/2000
rulebook is used (<i>which I prefer</i>), the convoy
depends on the "intent". Since there is an own fleet in the
convoy, the intent is to convoy and the armies in Rome and
Apulia swap places.
<p> For choices a, b and c of the issue there is also a convoy
and the same swap takes place.
<p>When explicit adjacent convoying is
used (DPTG, choice e), then the Turkish army did not receive
an order to move by convoy. So, it is just a head to head battle
and both the army in Rome and Apulia will not move.

<a name="6.G.6"><h4>6.G.6. TEST CASE, SWAPPING WITH UNINTENDED INTENT</h4></a>
<p>The intent is questionable.
<p><pre>
England:
A Liverpool - Edinburgh
F English Channel Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh

Germany:
A Edinburgh - Liverpool

France:
F Irish Sea Hold
F North Sea Hold

Russia:
F Norwegian Sea Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh
F North Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>.
<p>For choice a, b and c the English army in Liverpool will
move by convoy and consequentially the two armies are swapped.
<p>For choice d, the 1982/2000 rulebook (<i>which I prefer</i>), the
convoy depends on the "intent". England intended to convoy via the French
fleets in the Irish Sea and the North Sea. However, the French did not
order the convoy. The alternative route with the Russian fleets was unintended.
The English fleet in the English Channel (with the convoy order)
is not part of this alternative route with the Russian fleets.
Since England still "intent" to convoy, the move from
Liverpool to Edinburgh should be via convoy and the two armies
are swapped. Although, you could argue that this is not
really according to the clarification of the 2000 rulebook.
<p>When explicit adjacent convoying is used (DPTG, choice e),
then the English army did not receive an order to move by convoy.
So, it is just a head to head battle and both the army in Edinburgh
and Liverpool will not move.

<a name="6.G.7"><h4>6.G.7. TEST CASE, SWAPPING WITH ILLEGAL INTENT</h4></a>
<p>Can the intent made clear with an impossible order?
<p><pre>
England:
F Skagerrak Convoys A Sweden - Norway
F Norway - Sweden

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway
F Gulf of Bothnia Convoys A Sweden - Norway
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a> and <a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>.
<p>If for issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a> choice a, b or c has been taken,
then the army in Sweden moves by convoy and swaps places with the fleet in
Norway.
<p>However, if for issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a> the 1982/2000 has been
chosen (choice d), then the "intent" is important. The question is whether
the fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia can express the intent. If the order for
this fleet is considered illegal (see issue <a href="#4.E.1">4.E.1</a>),
then this order must be ignored and there is no intent to swap. In that
case none of the units move.
<p>If explicit convoying is used (DPTG, choice e of issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>)
then the army in Sweden will take the land route and none of the units
move.
<p><i>I prefer the 1982/2000 rule and that any orders that can't be
valid are illegal. So, the order of the fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia is
ignored and can not show the intent. There is no convoy, so no unit will
move.</i>

<a name="6.G.8"><h4>6.G.8. TEST CASE, EXPLICIT CONVOY THAT ISN'T THERE</h4></a>
<p>What to do when a unit is explicitly ordered to move via
convoy and the convoy is not there?
<p><pre>
France:
A Belgium - Holland via Convoy

England:
F North Sea - Helgoland Bight
A Holland - Kiel
</pre>
<p>The French army in Belgium intended to move convoyed with the
English fleet in the North Sea. But the English changed their
plans.
<p>See issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>.
<p>If choice a, b or c has been taken, then the 'via Convoy' directive
has no meaning and the army in Belgium will move to Holland.
<p>If the 1982/2000 rulebook is used (choice d, <i>which I prefer</i>), the
"via Convoy" has meaning, but only when there is both a land route and
a convoy route. Since there is no convoy the "via Convoy" directive should
be ignored. And the move from Belgium to Holland succeeds.
<p>If explicit adjacent convoying is used (DPTG, choice e),
then the unit can only go by convoy. Since there is no convoy, the move
from Belgium to Holland fails.

<a name="6.G.9"><h4>6.G.9. TEST CASE, SWAPPED OR DISLODGED?</h4></a>
<p>The 1982 rulebook says that whether the move is over land or
via convoy depends on the "intent" as shown by the totality
of the orders written by the player governing the army (see
issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>). In this test case the English army in Norway will
end in all cases in Sweden. But whether it is convoyed or not
has effect on the Russian army. In case of convoy the Russian
army ends in Norway and in case of a land route the Russian
army is dislodged.
<p><pre>
England:
A Norway - Sweden
F Skagerrak Convoys A Norway - Sweden
F Finland Supports A Norway - Sweden

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>.
<p>For choice a, b and c the move of the army in Norway
is by convoy and the armies in Norway and Sweden are swapped.
<p>If the 1982 rulebook is used with the clarification of the
2000 rulebook (choice d, <i>which I prefer</i>), the intent of the English player
is to convoy, since it ordered the fleet in Skagerrak to convoy. Therefore,
the armies in Norway and Sweden are swapped.
<p>When explicit adjacent convoying is used (DTPG, choice e), then the unit in
Norway did not receive an order to move by convoy and the
land route should be considered. The Russian army in Sweden
is dislodged.

<a name="6.G.10"><h4>6.G.10. TEST CASE, SWAPPED OR AN HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE?</h4></a>
<p>Can a dislodged unit have effect on the attackers area, when the attacker moved
by convoy?
<p><pre>
England:
A Norway - Sweden via Convoy
F Denmark Supports A Norway - Sweden
F Finland Supports A Norway - Sweden

Germany:
F Skagerrak Convoys A Norway - Sweden

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway
F Barents Sea Supports A Sweden - Norway

France:
F Norwegian Sea - Norway
F North Sea Supports F Norwegian Sea - Norway
</pre>
<p>Since England ordered the army in Norway to move explicitly
via convoy and the army in Sweden is moving in opposite direction,
only the convoyed route should be considered regardless of the
rulebook used. It is clear that the army
in Norway will dislodge the Russian army in Sweden. Since
the strength of three is in all cases the strongest force.
<p>The army in Sweden will not advance to Norway, because it
can not beat the force in the Norwegian Sea. It will be dislodged
by the army from Norway.
<p>The more interesting question is whether French fleet in the
Norwegian Sea is bounced by the Russian army from Sweden.
This depends on the interpretation of issue <a href="#4.A.7">4.A.7</a>.
If the rulebook is taken literally (choice a), then a dislodged unit
can not bounce a unit in the area where the attacker came from. This
would mean that the move of the fleet in the Norwegian Sea succeeds
However, if choice b is taken (<i>which I prefer</i>), then a bounce
is still possible, when there is no head to head battle. So, the
fleet in the Norwegian Sea will fail to move.

<a name="6.G.11"><h4>6.G.11. TEST CASE, A CONVOY TO AN ADJACENT PLACE WITH A PARADOX</h4></a>
<p>In this case the convoy route is available when the land
route is chosen and the convoy route is not available when
the convoy route is chosen.
<p><pre>
England:
F Norway Supports F North Sea - Skagerrak
F North Sea - Skagerrak

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway
F Skagerrak Convoys A Sweden - Norway
F Barents Sea Supports A Sweden - Norway
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a> and <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>.
<p>If for issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>, choice b, c or e
has been taken, then the
move from Sweden to Norway is not a convoy
and the English fleet in Norway is dislodged and the fleet
in Skagerrak will not be dislodged.
<p>If choice a or d (1982/2000 rule) has been taken for issue
<a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>, then the move from
Sweden to Norway must be treated as a convoy. At that moment
the situation becomes paradoxical. When the 'All Hold' rule is
used, both the army in Sweden as the fleet in the North Sea
will not advance. In all other paradox rules the English
fleet in the North Sea will dislodge the Russian fleet in
Skagerrak and the army in Sweden will not advance.
<p><i>I prefer the 1982 rule with the 2000 rulebook clarification
concerning the convoy to adjacent places and I prefer the Szykman
rule for paradox resolving. That means that according to these
preferences the fleet in the North Sea will dislodge the Russian
fleet in Skagerrak and the army in Sweden will not advance.</i>

<a name="6.G.12"><h4>6.G.12. TEST CASE, SWAPPING TWO UNITS WITH TWO CONVOYS</h4></a>
<p>Of course, two armies can also swap by when they are both convoyed.
<p><pre>
England:
A Liverpool - Edinburgh via Convoy
F North Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh
F Norwegian Sea Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh

Germany:
A Edinburgh - Liverpool via Convoy
F North Sea Convoys A Edinburgh - Liverpool
F English Channel Convoys A Edinburgh - Liverpool
F Irish Sea Convoys A Edinburgh - Liverpool
</pre>
<p>The armies in Liverpool and Edinburgh are swapped.

<a name="6.G.13"><h4>6.G.13. TEST CASE, SUPPORT CUT ON ATTACK ON ITSELF VIA CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>If a unit is attacked by a supported unit, it is not possible to prevent
dislodgement by trying to cut the support. But what, if a move is attempted via
a convoy?
<p><pre>
Austria:
F Adriatic Sea Convoys A Trieste - Venice
A Trieste - Venice via Convoy

Italy:
A Venice Supports F Albania - Trieste
F Albania - Trieste
</pre>
<p>First it should be mentioned that if for issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>
choice b or c is taken, then the move from Trieste to Venice is just a move
over land, because the army in Venice is not moving in opposite direction.
In that case, the support of Venice will not be cut as normal.
<p>In any other choice for issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>, it should be
decided whether the Austrian attack is considered to be coming from Trieste or from
the Adriatic Sea. If it comes from Trieste, the support in Venice is not cut and
the army in Trieste is dislodged by the fleet in Albania.
If the Austrian attack is considered to be coming from the Adriatic Sea, then
the support is cut and the army in Trieste will not be dislodged. See also issue
<a href="#4.A.4">4.A.4</a>.
<p><i>First of all, I prefer the 1982/2000 rules for adjacent convoying. This means
that I prefer the move from Trieste uses the convoy. Furthermore, I think that
the two Italian units are still stronger than the army in
Trieste. Therefore, I prefer that the support in Venice is not cut and that
the army in Trieste is dislodged by the fleet in Albania.</i>

<a name="6.G.14"><h4>6.G.14. TEST CASE, BOUNCE BY CONVOY TO ADJACENT PLACE</h4></a>
<p>Similar to test case <a href="#6.G.10">6.G.10</a>, but now the other unit
is taking the convoy.
<p><pre>
England:
A Norway - Sweden
F Denmark Supports A Norway - Sweden
F Finland Supports A Norway - Sweden

France:
F Norwegian Sea - Norway
F North Sea Supports F Norwegian Sea - Norway

Germany:
F Skagerrak Convoys A Sweden - Norway

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway via Convoy
F Barents Sea Supports A Sweden - Norway
</pre>
<p>Again the army in Sweden is bounced by the fleet in
the Norwegian Sea. The army in Norway will move to
Sweden and dislodge the Russian army.
<p>The final destination of the fleet in the Norwegian
Sea depends on how issue <a href="#4.A.7">4.A.7</a>
is resolved. If choice a is taken, then the fleet advances
to Norway, but if choice b is taken (<i>which I prefer</i>)
the fleet bounces and stays in the Norwegian Sea.

<a name="6.G.15"><h4>6.G.15. TEST CASE, BOUNCE AND DISLODGE WITH DOUBLE CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>Similar to test case <a href="#6.G.10">6.G.10</a>, but now both units
use a convoy and without some support.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium
A Holland Supports A London - Belgium
A Yorkshire - London
A London - Belgium via Convoy

France:
F English Channel Convoys A Belgium - London
A Belgium - London via Convoy
</pre>
<p>The French army in Belgium is bounced by the
army from Yorkshire. The army in London move to
Belgium, dislodging the unit there.
<p>The final destination of the army in the Yorkshire
depends on how issue <a href="#4.A.7">4.A.7</a>
is resolved. If choice a is taken, then the army advances
to London, but if choice b is taken (<i>which I prefer</i>)
the army bounces and stays in Yorkshire.

<a name="6.G.16"><h4>6.G.16. TEST CASE, THE TWO UNIT IN ONE AREA BUG, MOVING BY CONVOY</h4></a>
If the adjudicator is not correctly implemented, this may lead to
a resolution where two units end up in the same area.
<p><pre>
England:
A Norway - Sweden
A Denmark Supports A Norway - Sweden
F Baltic Sea Supports A Norway - Sweden
F North Sea - Norway

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway via Convoy
F Skagerrak Convoys A Sweden - Norway
F Norwegian Sea Supports A Sweden - Norway
</pre>
<p>See decision details <a href="#5.B.6">5.B.6</a>. If the 'PREVENT STRENGTH'
is incorrectly implemented, due to the fact that it does not take
into account that the 'PREVENT STRENGTH' is only zero when the
unit is engaged in a head to head battle, then this goes wrong in
this test case. The 'PREVENT STRENGTH' of Sweden would be zero,
because the opposing unit in Norway successfully moves. Since,
this strength would be zero, the fleet in the North Sea would move to
Norway. However, although the 'PREVENT STRENGTH' is zero, the army
in Sweden would also move to Norway. So, the final result would contain
two units that successfully moved to Norway.
<p>Of course, this is incorrect. Norway will indeed successfully move
to Sweden while the army in Sweden ends in Norway, because it is stronger
then the fleet in the North Sea. This fleet will stay in the North
Sea.

<a name="6.G.17"><h4>6.G.17. TEST CASE, THE TWO UNIT IN ONE AREA BUG, MOVING OVER LAND</h4></a>
Similar to the previous test case, but now the other unit moves by convoy.
<p><pre>
England:
A Norway - Sweden via Convoy
A Denmark Supports A Norway - Sweden
F Baltic Sea Supports A Norway - Sweden
F Skagerrak Convoys A Norway - Sweden
F North Sea - Norway

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway
F Norwegian Sea Supports A Sweden - Norway
</pre>
<p>Sweden and Norway are swapped, while the fleet in the
North Sea will bounce.

<a name="6.G.18"><h4>6.G.18. TEST CASE, THE TWO UNIT IN ONE AREA BUG, WITH DOUBLE CONVOY</h4></a>
Similar to the previous test case, but now both units move by convoy.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium
A Holland Supports A London - Belgium
A Yorkshire - London
A London - Belgium
A Ruhr Supports A London - Belgium

France:
F English Channel Convoys A Belgium - London
A Belgium - London
A Wales Supports A Belgium - London
</pre>
<p>Belgium and London are swapped, while the army in
Yorkshire fails to move to London.

<a name="6.H"><h3>6.H. TEST CASES, RETREATING</h3></a>

<a name="6.H.1"><h4>6.H.1. TEST CASE, NO SUPPORTS DURING RETREAT</h4></a>
<p>Supports are not allowed in the retreat phase.
<p><pre>
Austria:
F Trieste Hold
A Serbia Hold

Turkey:
F Greece Hold

Italy:
A Venice Supports A Tyrolia - Trieste
A Tyrolia - Trieste
F Ionian Sea - Greece
F Aegean Sea Supports F Ionian Sea - Greece
</pre>
<p>The fleet in Trieste and the fleet in Greece are dislodged. If the retreat orders
are as follows:
<p><pre>
Austria:
F Trieste - Albania
A Serbia Supports F Trieste - Albania

Turkey:
F Greece - Albania
</pre>
<p>The Austrian support order is illegal. Both dislodged fleets are disbanded.

<a name="6.H.2"><h4>6.H.2. TEST CASE, NO SUPPORTS FROM RETREATING UNIT</h4></a>
<p>Even a retreating unit can not give support.
<p><pre>
England:
A Liverpool - Edinburgh
F Yorkshire Supports A Liverpool - Edinburgh
F Norway Hold

Germany:
A Kiel Supports A Ruhr - Holland
A Ruhr - Holland

Russia:
F Edinburgh Hold
A Sweden Supports A Finland - Norway
A Finland - Norway
F Holland Hold
</pre><p>The English fleet in Norway and the Russian fleets in Edinburgh and
Holland are dislodged. If the following retreat orders are given:
<p><pre>
England:
F Norway - North Sea

Russia:
F Edinburgh - North Sea
F Holland Supports F Edinburgh - North Sea
</pre>
<p>Although the fleet in Holland may receive an order, it may not support
(it is disbanded). The English fleet in Norway and the Russian fleet in
Edinburgh bounce and are disbanded.

<a name="6.H.3"><h4>6.H.3. TEST CASE, NO CONVOY DURING RETREAT</h4></a>
<p>Convoys during retreat are not allowed.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Hold
A Holland Hold

Germany:
F Kiel Supports A Ruhr - Holland
A Ruhr - Holland
</pre>
<p>The English army in Holland is dislodged. If England orders the following
in retreat:
<p><pre>
England:
A Holland - Yorkshire
F North Sea Convoys A Holland - Yorkshire
</pre>
<p>The convoy order is illegal. The army in Holland is disbanded.

<a name="6.H.4"><h4>6.H.4. TEST CASE, NO OTHER MOVES DURING RETREAT</h4></a>
<p>Of course you may not do any other move during a retreat. But look if
the adjudicator checks for it.
<p><pre>
England:
F North Sea Hold
A Holland Hold

Germany:
F Kiel Supports A Ruhr - Holland
A Ruhr - Holland
</pre>
<p>The English army in Holland is dislodged. If England orders the following
in retreat:
<p><pre>
England:
A Holland - Belgium
F North Sea - Norwegian Sea
</pre>
<p>The fleet in the North Sea is not dislodge, so the move is illegal.

<a name="6.H.5"><h4>6.H.5. TEST CASE, A UNIT MAY NOT RETREAT TO THE AREA FROM WHICH IT IS ATTACKED</h4></a>
<p>Well, that would be of course stupid. Still, the adjudicator must be
tested on this.
<p><pre>
Russia:
F Constantinople Supports F Black Sea - Ankara
F Black Sea - Ankara

Turkey:
F Ankara Hold
</pre>
<p>Fleet in Ankara is dislodged and may not retreat to Black Sea.

<a name="6.H.6"><h4>6.H.6. TEST CASE, UNIT MAY NOT RETREAT TO A CONTESTED AREA</h4></a>
<p>Stand off prevents retreat to the area.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Budapest Supports A Trieste - Vienna
A Trieste - Vienna

Germany:
A Munich - Bohemia
A Silesia - Bohemia

Italy:
A Vienna Hold
</pre>
<p>The Italian army in Vienna is dislodged. It may not retreat to Bohemia.

<a name="6.H.7"><h4>6.H.7. TEST CASE, MULTIPLE RETREAT TO SAME AREA WILL DISBAND UNITS</h4></a>
<p>There can only be one unit in an area.
<p><pre>
Austria:
A Budapest Supports A Trieste - Vienna
A Trieste - Vienna

Germany:
A Munich Supports A Silesia - Bohemia
A Silesia - Bohemia

Italy:
A Vienna Hold
A Bohemia Hold
</pre>
<p>If Italy orders the following for retreat:
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Bohemia - Tyrolia
A Vienna - Tyrolia
</pre>
<p>Both armies will be disbanded.

<a name="6.H.8"><h4>6.H.8. TEST CASE, TRIPLE RETREAT TO SAME AREA WILL DISBAND UNITS</h4></a>
<p>When three units retreat to the same area, then all three units are disbanded.
<p><pre>
England:
A Liverpool - Edinburgh
F Yorkshire Supports A Liverpool - Edinburgh
F Norway Hold

Germany:
A Kiel Supports A Ruhr - Holland
A Ruhr - Holland

Russia:
F Edinburgh Hold
A Sweden Supports A Finland - Norway
A Finland - Norway
F Holland Hold
</pre>
<p>The fleets in Norway, Edinburgh and Holland are dislodged. If the following retreat
orders are given:
<p><pre>
England:
F Norway - North Sea

Russia:
F Edinburgh - North Sea
F Holland - North Sea
</pre>
<p>All three units are disbanded.

<a name="6.H.9"><h4>6.H.9. TEST CASE, DISLODGED UNIT WILL NOT MAKE ATTACKERS AREA CONTESTED</h4></a>
<p>An army can follow.
<p><pre>
England:
F Helgoland Bight - Kiel
F Denmark Supports F Helgoland Bight - Kiel

Germany:
A Berlin - Prussia
F Kiel Hold
A Silesia Supports A Berlin - Prussia

Russia:
A Prussia - Berlin
</pre>
<p>The fleet in Kiel can retreat to Berlin.

<a name="6.H.10"><h4>6.H.10. TEST CASE, NOT RETREATING TO ATTACKER DOES NOT MEAN CONTESTED</h4></a>
<p>An army can not retreat to the place of the attacker. The easiest
way to program that, is to mark that place as "contested". However,
this is not correct. Another army may retreat to that place.
<p><pre>
England:
A Kiel Hold

Germany:
A Berlin - Kiel
A Munich Supports A Berlin - Kiel
A Prussia Hold

Russia:
A Warsaw - Prussia
A Silesia Supports A Warsaw - Prussia
</pre>
<p>The armies in Kiel and Prussia are dislodged. The English army in
Kiel can not retreat to Berlin, but the army in Prussia can retreat
to Berlin. Suppose the following retreat orders are given:
<p><pre>
England:
A Kiel - Berlin

Germany:
A Prussia - Berlin
</pre>
<p>The English retreat to Berlin is illegal and fails (the unit is disbanded).
The German retreat to Berlin is successful and does not bounce on the
English unit.

<a name="6.H.11"><h4>6.H.11. TEST CASE, RETREAT WHEN DISLODGED BY ADJACENT CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>If a unit is dislodged by an army via convoy, the question arises
whether the dislodged army can retreat to the original place of the
convoyed army. This is only relevant in case the convoy was to an
adjacent place.
<p><pre>
France:
A Gascony - Marseilles via Convoy
A Burgundy Supports A Gascony - Marseilles
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Gascony - Marseilles
F Western Mediterranean Convoys A Gascony - Marseilles
F Gulf of Lyon Convoys A Gascony - Marseilles

Italy:
A Marseilles Hold
</pre>
<p>If for issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a> choice b or c has been
taken, then the army in Gascony will not move with the use of the
convoy, because the army in Marseilles does not move in opposite
direction. This immediately means that the army in Marseilles may
not move to Gascony when it dislodged by the army there.
<p>For all other choices of issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>,
the army in Gascony takes a convoy and does not pass the border
of Gascony with Marseilles (it went a complete different direction).
Now, the result depends on which rule is used for retreating
(see issue <a href="#4.A.5">4.A.5</a>).
<p><i>I prefer the 1982/2000 rule for convoying to adjacent places. This means that
the move of Gascony happened by convoy. Furthermore, I prefer that the army in
Marseilles may retreat to Gascony.</i>

<a name="6.H.12"><h4>6.H.12. TEST CASE, RETREAT WHEN DISLODGED BY ADJACENT CONVOY WHILE TRYING TO DO THE SAME</h4></a>
<p>The previous test case can be made more extra ordinary, when
both armies tried to move by convoy.
<p><pre>
England:
A Liverpool - Edinburgh via Convoy
F Irish Sea Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh
F English Channel Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh
F North Sea Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh

France:
F Brest - English Channel
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Brest - English Channel

Russia:
A Edinburgh - Liverpool via Convoy
F Norwegian Sea Convoys A Edinburgh - Liverpool
F North Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Edinburgh - Liverpool
A Clyde Supports A Edinburgh - Liverpool
</pre>
<p>If for issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a> choice c has been
taken, then the army in Liverpool will not try to move by
convoy, because the convoy is disrupted. This has as consequence
that army will just advance to Edinburgh by using the land route.
<p>For all other choices of issue <a href="#4.A.3">4.A.3</a>,
both the army in Liverpool as in Edinburgh will try to move by
convoy. The army in Edinburgh will succeed. The army in Liverpool
will fail, because of the disrupted convoy. It is dislodged by the
army of Edinburgh. Now, the question is whether the army in
Liverpool may retreat to Edinburgh. The result depends on which
rule is used for retreating (see issue <a href="#4.A.5">4.A.5</a>).
<p><i>I prefer the 1982/2000 rule for convoying to adjacent places. This means that
the army in Liverpool tries the disrupted convoy. Furthermore, I prefer that
the army in Liverpool may retreat to Edinburgh.</i>

<a name="6.H.13"><h4>6.H.13. TEST CASE, NO RETREAT WITH CONVOY IN MAIN PHASE</h4></a>
<p>The places where a unit may retreat to, must be calculated during the
main phase. Care should be taken that a convoy ordered in the main phase
can not be used in the retreat phase.
<p><pre>
England:
A Picardy Hold
F English Channel Convoys A Picardy - London

France:
A Paris - Picardy
A Brest Supports A Paris - Picardy
</pre>
<p>The dislodged army in Picardy can not retreat to London.

<a name="6.H.14"><h4>6.H.14. TEST CASE, NO RETREAT WITH SUPPORT IN MAIN PHASE</h4></a>
<p>Comparable to the previous test case, a support given in the main phase
can not be used in the retreat phase.
<p><pre>
England:
A Picardy Hold
F English Channel Supports A Picardy - Belgium

France:
A Paris - Picardy
A Brest Supports A Paris - Picardy
A Burgundy Hold

Germany:
A Munich Supports A Marseilles - Burgundy
A Marseilles - Burgundy
</pre>
<p>After the main phase the following retreat orders are given:
England:
A Picardy - Belgium

France:
A Burgundy - Belgium
<p>Both the army in Picardy and Burgundy are disbanded.

<a name="6.H.15"><h4>6.H.15. TEST CASE, NO COASTAL CRAWL IN RETREAT</h4></a>
<p>You can not go to the other coast from where the attacker came
from.
<p><pre>
England:
F Portugal Hold

France:
F Spain(sc) - Portugal
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Spain(sc) - Portugal
</pre>
<p>The English fleet in Portugal is destroyed and can not
retreat to Spain(nc).

<a name="6.H.16"><h4>6.H.16. TEST CASE, CONTESTED FOR BOTH COASTS</h4></a>
<p>If a coast is contested, the other is not available for retreat.
<p><pre>
France:
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Spain(nc)
F Gascony - Spain(nc)
F Western Mediterranean Hold

Italy:
F Tunis Supports F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean
</pre>
<p>The French fleet in the Western Mediterranean can not
retreat to Spain(sc).

<a name="6.I"><h3>6.I. TEST CASES, BUILDING</h3></a>

<a name="6.I.1"><h4>6.I.1. TEST CASE, TOO MANY BUILD ORDERS</h4></a>
<p>Check how program reacts when someone orders too many builds.
<p>Germany may build one:
<p><pre>
Germany:
Build A Warsaw
Build A Kiel
Build A Munich
</pre>
<p>Program should not build all three, but handle it in an other
way. See issue <a href="#4.D.4">4.D.4</a>.
<p><i>I prefer that the build orders are just handled one by one
until all allowed units are build. According to this preference,
the build in Warsaw fails, the build in Kiel succeeds and the
build in Munich fails.</i>

<a name="6.I.2"><h4>6.I.2. TEST CASE, FLEETS CAN NOT BE BUILD IN LAND AREAS</h4></a>
<p>Physical this is possible, but it is still not allowed.
<p>Russia has one build and Moscow is empty.
<p><pre>
Russia:
Build F Moscow
</pre>
<p>See issue <a href="#4.C.4">4.C.4</a>. Some game masters will change
the order and build an army in Moscow.
<p><i>I prefer that the build fails.</i>

<a name="6.I.3"><h4>6.I.3. TEST CASE, SUPPLY CENTER MUST BE EMPTY FOR BUILDING</h4></a>
<p>You can't have two units in a sector. So, you can't build
when there is a unit in the supply center.
<p>Germany may build a unit but has an army in Berlin. Germany
orders the following:
<p><pre>
Germany:
Build A Berlin
</pre>
<p>Build fails.

<a name="6.I.4"><h4>6.I.4. TEST CASE, BOTH COASTS MUST BE EMPTY FOR BUILDING</h4></a>
<p>If a sector is occupied on one coast, the other coast can not be used for
building.
<p>Russia may build a unit and has a fleet in St Petersburg(sc). Russia
orders the following:
<p><pre>
Russia:
Build A St Petersburg(nc)
</pre>
<p>Build fails.

<a name="6.I.5"><h4>6.I.5. TEST CASE, BUILDING IN HOME SUPPLY CENTER THAT IS NOT OWNED</h4></a>
<p>Building a unit is only allowed when supply center is a home
supply center and is owned. If not owned, build fails.
<p>Russia captured Berlin in Fall. Left Berlin. Germany can
not build in Berlin.
<p><pre>
Germany:
Build A Berlin
</pre>
<p>Build fails.

<a name="6.I.6"><h4>6.I.6. TEST CASE, BUILDING IN OWNED SUPPLY CENTER THAT IS NOT A HOME SUPPLY CENTER</h4></a>
<p>Building a unit is only allowed when supply center is a home
supply center and is owned. If it is not a home supply center, the build fails.
<p>Germany owns Warsaw, Warsaw is empty and Germany may build one unit.
<p><pre>
Germany:
Build A Warsaw
</pre>
<p>Build fails.

<a name="6.I.7"><h4>6.I.7. TEST CASE, ONLY ONE BUILD IN A HOME SUPPLY CENTER</h4></a>
<p>If you may build two units, you can still only build one in a supply center.
<p>Russia owns Moscow, Moscow is empty and Russia may build two units.
<p><pre>
Russia:
Build A Moscow
Build A Moscow
</pre>
<p>The second build should fail.

<a name="6.J"><h3>6.J. TEST CASES, CIVIL DISORDER AND DISBANDS</h3></a>

<a name="6.J.1"><h4>6.J.1. TEST CASE, TOO MANY REMOVE ORDERS</h4></a>
<p>Check how program reacts when someone orders too disbands.
<p>France has to disband one and has an army in Paris and Picardy.
<p><pre>
France:
Remove F Gulf of Lyon
Remove A Picardy
Remove A Paris
</pre>
<p>Program should not disband both Paris and Picardy, but should handle
it in a different way. See also issue <a href="#4.D.6">4.D.6</a>.
<p><i>I prefer that the disband orders are handled one by one. According
to the preference, the removal of the fleet in the Gulf of Lyon fails
(no fleet), the removal of the army in Picardy succeeds and the removal
of the army in Paris fails (too many disbands).</i>

<a name="6.J.2"><h4>6.J.2. TEST CASE, REMOVING THE SAME UNIT TWICE</h4></a>
<p>If you have to remove two units, you can always try to trick the
computer by removing the same unit twice.
<p>France has to disband two and has an army in Paris.
<p><pre>
France:
Remove A Paris
Remove A Paris
</pre>
<p>Program should remove army in Paris and remove another unit by
using the civil disorder rules.

<a name="6.J.3"><h4>6.J.3. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER TWO ARMIES WITH DIFFERENT DISTANCE</h4></a>
<p>When a player forgets to disband a unit, the civil disorder
rules must be applied. When two armies have different distance
from the home supply centers, then the army with the greatest
distance has to be removed.
<p><pre>
Russia has to remove one.
Russia has armies in Livonia and Sweden.
Russia does not order a disband.
</pre>
The army in Sweden is removed.

<a name="6.J.4"><h4>6.J.4. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER TWO ARMIES WITH EQUAL DISTANCE</h4></a>
<p>If two armies have equal distance from the home supply centers,
then alphabetical order is used.
<p><pre>
Russia has to remove one.
Russia has armies in Livonia and Ukraine.
Russia does not order a disband.
</pre>
<p>Both armies have distance one. The Livonia army is removed, because
it appears first in alphabetical order.

<a name="6.J.5"><h4>6.J.5 TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER TWO FLEETS WITH DIFFERENT DISTANCE</h4></a>
<p>If two fleets have different distance from the home supply centers,
then the fleet with the greatest distance has to be removed. Note that
fleets can not go over land.
<p><pre>
Russia has to remove one.
Russia has fleets in Skagerrak and Berlin.
Russia does not order a disband.
</pre>
<p>The distance of the fleet in Berlin is three (the fleet can not go to
Warsaw), the fleet in Skaggerrak has distance two (via Norway). So,
the fleet in Berlin has to be removed.

<a name="6.J.6"><h4>6.J.6. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER TWO FLEETS WITH EQUAL DISTANCE</h4></a>
<p>Alphabetical order is used, when two fleets have equal distance to the home supply centers.
<p><pre>
Russia has to remove one.
Russia has fleets in Berlin and Helgoland Bight.
Russia does not order a disband.
</pre>
<p>The distances of both fleets to one of the home supply centers is three.
The fleet in the Berlin is removed, because it appears first in
alphabetical order. This also tests whether fleets can not go over land.
If they could go over land, the distance of Berlin would be two (going to
Warsaw) and the fleet in the Helgoland Bight would have incorrectly
be removed.

<a name="6.J.7"><h4>6.J.7. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER TWO FLEETS AND ARMY WITH EQUAL DISTANCE</h4></a>
<p>In removal, the fleet has precedence over an army. In this case there are two
fleets, to make the test more complex.
<p><pre>
Russia has to remove one.
Russia has an army in Bohemia, a fleet in Skagerrak and a fleet in the North Sea.
Russia does not order a disband.
</pre>
<p>The distances of the army and the fleets to one of the home supply centers
are two. The fleets take precedence above the army (although the army is
alphabetical first). The fleet in the North Sea is alphabetical first, compared
to Skagerrak and has to be removed.

<a name="6.J.8"><h4>6.J.8. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER A FLEET WITH SHORTER DISTANCE THEN THE ARMY</h4></a>
<p>If the fleet has a shorter distance than the army, the army is removed.
<p><pre>
Russia has to remove one.
Russia has an army in Tyrolia and a fleet in the Baltic Sea.
Russia does not order a disband.
</pre>
<p>The distances of the army to Warsaw is three while the distance of the
fleet is two. So, the army is removed.

<a name="6.J.9"><h4>6.J.9. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER MUST BE COUNTED FROM BOTH COASTS</h4></a>
<p>Distance must be calculated from both coasts.
<p><pre>
Russia has to remove one.
Russia has an army in Tyrolia and a fleet in the Baltic Sea.
Russia does not order a disband.
</pre>
<p>The distance of the fleet to St Petersburg(nc) is three but to
St Petersburg(sc) is two. So, the army in Tyrolia must be removed.
<p><pre>
Russia has to remove one.
Russia has an army in Tyrolia and a fleet in Skagerrak.
Russia does not order a disband.
</pre>
<p>The distance of the fleet to St Petersburg(sc) is three but to
St Petersburg(nc) is two. So, the army in Tyrolia must be removed.

<a name="6.J.10"><h4>6.J.10. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER COUNTING CONVOYING DISTANCE</h4></a>
<p>For armies the distance must be calculated by taking land areas,
coastal areas as sea areas.
<p><pre>
Italy has to remove one.
Italy has a fleet in the Ionian Sea and armies in Greece and Silesia.
Italy does not order a disband.
</pre>
<p>The distance from Greece to one of the Italian home supply center
is three over land. However, using a convoy the distance is
one or two (depending how you count, see issue <a href="#4.D.8">4.D.8</a>).
Anyway, the army in Silesia has to be removed.

<a name="6.J.11"><h4>6.J.11. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER COUNTING DISTANCE WITHOUT CONVOYING FLEET</h4></a>
<p>If there is no convoying fleet the result depends on the interpretation
of the rules.
<p><pre>
Italy has to remove one.
Italy has armies in Greece and Silesia.
Italy does not order a disband.
</pre>
<p>The distance from Greece to one of the Italian home supply centers
is one, two or three (depending how you count, see issue <a href="#4.D.8">4.D.8</a>).
<p><i>I prefer that sea areas just add one to the distance. According to
this preference, the distance is two and the army in Silesia has to be
removed.</i>

<a name="7"><h3>7. COLONIAL VARIANT</h3></a>
<p>The rulebook of the second print of the colonial variant is used as
source for these test case. Note that the regular rules in the Colonial rulebook
are not based on the 1982 rules as you might expect, but on the 1971 rules.
<p>The errata published by Avalon Hill is used as additional source
(The General, Volume 30, Number 4). The exact text of this errata is as follows:
<h4>Errata published by Avalon Hill</h4>
<p>Map Addition: Kyoto is starting Colony for Japan. There should
be a white circled dot in Kyoto.
<p>Map Change: Constantinople is a province of Turkey. It should be
printed in the same white colour as the rest of Turkey.
<p>The correct abbreviation for the Andaman Sea is "AND.S" as per
Rule 13.0; the abbreviation found on the conference map is incorrect.
<p>Rule Change: 9.11: Delete "China may not enter Hong Kong until
<p>the turn after another power has occupied it at the end of a counting move (even-numbered turns)."
<p>9.34: Delete "A EGY S SUD"
<p>9.35: Change "Turkey A EGY S British F RS-MED" to "Turkey F EGY S British F RS-MED"
<p>Clarifications: TRANS-SIBERIAN RAILROAD
<p>9.21 Only the Russian player may use the TSR. The Russian player may not
allow another power to use it.
<p>9.23 This rule restricts the attack capability of units using the TSR
<p>A unit using the TSR may attack:<br>
(1) a province that is unoccupied at the start of the turn. Normal rules
of conflict would apply,<br>
(2) a province that is occupied at the start of the turn but was made
empty during the current turn as a result of that unit moving out. Normal
rules of conflict would apply, or<br>
(3) a province that is occupied at the start of the turn, but if the unit
remains in place then the attack will be unsuccessful (even with support) and the unit
will have to stop in the nearest empty province along the line of the railroad before
the enemy-occupied province (e.g. An army in Moscow with orders A MOS-TSR-VLA with an
enemy unit holding in Vladivostok results in the Moscow army stopping in Irkutsk --the order
is legal, in the hope that the province will be vacated, but unsuccessful).
<p>Note: So long as an enemy unit remains in place it may not be successfully
attacked that turn by a unit using the TSR. This still applies even if that
enemy unit is attacked by a third power that turn and forced to retreat,
for example: Russia A MOS-TSR-VLA China A VLA HOLD Japan A SEO-VLA, F OS S A SEO-VLA
<p>The Russian unit stops in Irkutsk. The Chinese unit retreats (not to Irkutsk or Seoul).
The Japanese unit from Seoul takes Vladivostok.
<p>9.241 The presence of a foreign power in a province along the line of the TSR
blocks its use beyond that point. However, if the unit later moves off this province
thus unblocking the line, the TSR may again function normally, that is, control of the
province reverts to Russia (it is assumed the partisans rebuild the line).
<p>EXCEPTION: If a supply center on the line of the TSR (Moscow, Omsk, Vladivostok) is
captured by an enemy power and later vacated, ownership remains with that power and
the TSR is out at that point until Russia is able to recapture the province. Only
then is the line "open" again. For example, if China owns Omsk but has vacated it,
a Russian unit using the TSR from Vladivostok could move to Omsk, but no further that turn.
<p>9.25 A curious example of this rule applies if an enemy unit attacks from one province
to another along the line of the TSR at the same time that a Russian unit is railed
through these provinces in the same direction such as:
<p>Russia A VLA-TSR-OMSK China A KRA-OMSK
<p>This results in a standoff in Omsk. The Chinese unit stays in Krasnoyarsk
and the Russian unit stays in Irkutsk. The logic being that Krasnoyarsk is
left empty by the Chinese at the time the Russian unit moves through. Thus both
units attack Omsk and cause a standoff. NOTE: The above result would also have
occurred if the Russian unit had been ordered to Perm or Moscow because the same
standoff would still occur in Omsk.
<p>SUGGESTED ADDITION TO MAP The island of Sakhalin is contained entirely within
the Okhotsk Sea and a unit there cannot be eliminated, so it is suggested that
a - land bridge - arrow should connect Otaru and Sakhalin thus allowing a supported
attack from Otaru and Okhotsk Sea to take Sakhalin.
<p>CEBU Cebu is one space containing both land and sea. It can be occupied by
either an army or a fleet. An army can use the - land bridges - to move from
Manila to Cebu and Cebu to Davao (and vice versa). The game spaces adjacent to
Cebu are: Manila, Middle Pacific, Lower Pacific, Davao, Sulu Sea and Luzon Strait.
<p>Trans-Siberian Railroad
<p>Q. In the following situation, where do A Mos and A Omsk end up? Russian
orders: A Mos-TSR-Vla, A Omsk-Kra, A Vla-Seo; Chinese orders: A Mac-Irk.<br>
A. The standoff in Kra means that A Omsk does not move and A Mos stops in Perm.
<p>Q. If Russia orders A Mos-TRS-Vla and China orders A Mac-Irk and A Mon-Kra, what happens?<br>
A. A Mon-Kra fails, A Mac-Irk succeeds, A Mos stops in Omsk.

<h4>Additional assumptions</h4>
<p>The additional rules and the errata do not explain everything. Therefore
the following assumptions are made in the resolutions of the test cases
(note, these are disputable):
<ul>
<li>A move with the Trans-Siberian Railroad can bounce on a Russian unit.<br>
This is not obvious, since a Russian army can rail through another Russian army.
This follows implicitly from an example in the errata.</li>
<li>A Russian army can rail through another Russian army as long it is not dislodged.
The army railing through will not be part of a beleaguered garrison.
<li>A Russian army using the Trans-Siberian Railroad can only receive support on the
final part of the move.<br>
Since there is no notation for support on other parts of the move, it is assumed that
this is not possible.
<li>A move with the Trans-Siberian Railroad can not cut support.<br>
According to the errata an attack will be unsuccessful when a unit stays
in place. So, it is assumed that it can not cut support.</li>
<li>When a unit is ordered to go with the Trans-Siberian Railroad and the first place
the unit has to pass contains another unit moving in the opposite direction, then the
Trans-Siberian Railroad order should be treated as a normal move to the first place
the unit wanted to pass, but without the ability dislodging the other unit.<br>
So, in such case there is just a head to head battle (without the ability to
dislodge by the unit using the Trans-Siberian Railroad).</li>
<li>In case of a paradoxical situation which includes a move with the Trans-Siberian
Railroad, at least the last part of the move that is part of the paradoxical situation
fails, but is still capable of bouncing other units.<br>
When this rule is applied it may result that earlier parts of the move with
the Trans-Siberian railroad also fail.</li>
<li>The Trans-Siberian Railroad can not be used during retreat.</li>
<li>When two units are ordered to use the Trans-Siberian Railroad, they both
hold (able to receive a hold support).
<li>Only one unit can get permission to go through to the Suez Canal.<br>
This means that if there is an explicit permission and a possible implicit permission,
the implicit permission is denied. If there are two possible implicit permissions, then
both permissions are denied.
<li>In case of a paradoxical situation which includes the Suez Canal, the move through
the Suez Canal fails and the fleet moving through the Suez Canal does not have
any effect on its ordered destination.<br>
This is an extension of the Szykman rule for resolving paradoxes.
<li>In case there is combination of the Trans-Siberian Railroad, the Suez Canal and
a possibly disrupted convoy in a paradox, all paradox rules should be applied at
the same time<br>
So, there is no priority for the paradox rules for the Trans-Siberian Railroad,
the Suez Canal and disrupted convoys.</li>
</ul>
<h4>The Sakhalin story</h4>
<p>On the first print of the Colonial variant map there is no land bridge
between Sakhalin and Otaru and there is no land bridge between Sakhalin
Vladivostok. This introduces the problem that a unit in Sakhalin can not
be dislodged, because Sakhalin has only one neighbor (Okhotsk Sea).
Since this area has also a supply center, the area can supply itself.
<p>In the second print of the Colonial variant map and in the errata,
Avalon Hill "corrected" this problem by adding a land bridge between
Sakhalin and Otaru. However, this introduced a new problem. Two units
in Sakhalin and Otaru can support each other and supply there selves forever.
And some argue that this situation is even worse then the original
problem.
<p>There are several ways to solve this problems. One of the most
common played versions is the "Moulmein Convention". In that
convention there is a second additional land bridge between
Otaru and Akita. However, according to Peter Hawes, the lead
designer of the Colonial variant, the original design contained
a land bridge between Sakhalin and Vladivostok (and no land bridge
between Sakhalin and Otaru). Avalon Hill omitted this land
bridge by mistake. You should realize that this is a large
change to the map and Avalon Hill never made an errata in
this direction. Some people argue that a land bridge between
Sakhalin and Vladivostok is very bad, because Japan can be denied
any build in the first build turn. However, that this is not
different from the standard game where at least England and Russia
can be denied any build in the first build turn.
<p><i>I prefer the land bridge between Sakhalin and Vladivostok.
I think that the many land bridges in the Moulmein Convention
destroys the interesting geographical situation in that
area and makes it too easy for Japan to defend. A common
complaint is that Japan is too strong (to only way to
beat Japan is to start bashing it from the start of the
game). With the land bridge between Sakhalin and Vladivostok,
Russia has to make a difficult choice. It can take
Sakhalin at the first turn (with a rather useless army on
Sakhalin) or try to move the army in the direction of
Seoul and Fusan. I think that this makes the situation
much more interesting and gives a better balance to
the game.</i>

<a name="7.A"><h4>7.A. TEST CASES, HONG KONG OPTIONAL RULE</h4></a>

<a name="7.A.1"><h5>7.A.1 TEST CASE, HONG KONG IS NOT A SUPPLY CENTER FOR CHINA</h5></a>
<p>Move Chinese army to Hong Kong in fall.
China should not have the right to build a unit for
the Hong Kong supply center.

<a name="7.A.2"><h5>7.A.2. TEST CASE, HONG KONG IS A SUPPLY CENTER FOR OTHER COUNTRIES</h5></a>
<p>We know it is for Britain. But for France?
Move French army to Hong Kong in fall.
France should have the right to build a unit for the
additional Hong Kong supply center.

<a name="7.A.3"><h5>7.A.3. TEST CASE, HONG KONG DOES NOT COUNT FOR VICTORY FOR CHINA</h5></a>
<p>Set victory condition to 30 (long game). Let China own 29 supply
centers which does not include Hong Kong. Let China own Hong Kong.
China has not won yet.

<a name="7.B"><h4>7.B. TEST CASE, TRANS SIBERIAN RAILROAD OPTIONAL RULE</h4></a>

<a name="7.B.1"><h5>7.B.1. TEST CASE, TSR BOUNCING ON ARMY OF OTHER COUNTRY</h5></a>
<p>Along the railroad, the army can bounce.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Irkutsk

Turkey:
A Orenburg - Omsk
</pre>
<p>Armies will bounce in Omsk. The Russian army will end in
Perm and the Turkish army will stay in Orenburg.

<a name="7.B.2"><h5>7.B.2. TEST CASE, TSR CAN NOT PASS A SUPPORTED ARMY</h5></a>
<p>If along the railroad, another armies move in with support,
the army will bounce.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Irkutsk

Turkey:
A Orenburg - Omsk
A Akmolinsk Supports A Orenburg - Omsk
</pre>
<p>The Russian army will end in Perm and the Turkish will move to
Omsk.

<a name="7.B.3"><h5>7.B.3. TEST CASE, TSR CAN MOVE THROUGH RUSSIAN ARMY</h5></a>
<p>If along the railroad, a Russian army is holding, the army using
the TSR should move through the army.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Omsk Hold
</pre>
<p>Army should pass through the army in Omsk and end in Vladivostok.

<a name="7.B.4"><h5>7.B.4, TEST CASE, TSR BOUNCES ON RUSSIAN ARMY</h5></a>
<p>If along the railroad, a Russian army is moving in, the army
using the TSR will not move through the army, but will bounce on it.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Akmolinsk - Omsk
</pre>
<p>Both armies bounces in Omsk. The army in Moscow will end in Perm
and the army in Akmolinsk will stay in Akmolinsk.

<a name="7.B.5"><h5>7.B.5. TEST CASE, BOUNCING WHILE PASSING THROUGH A RUSSIAN ARMY</h5></a>
<p>If an army using the TSR is passing through another Russian,
but can not go further, it should not end with two units in the
same sector.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR -Vladivostok
A Omsk Hold

China:
A Mongolia - Krasnoyarsk
</pre>
<p>The Russian army and the Chinese army bounce in Krasnoyarsk. The Russian
army will end in Perm and the Chinese army will stay in Mongolia.

<a name="7.B.6"><h5>7.B.6. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS WHEN TWO ARMIES BOUNCE</h5></a>
<p>When two armies bounce on one of the sectors on the TSR, the
army using the TSR can still pass.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Semipalatinsk - Krasnoyarsk

China:
A Mongolia - Krasnoyarsk
</pre>
<p>The Russian and Chinese army bounce in Krasnoyarsk. This makes it
possible that the army using the TSR ends in Vladivostok.

<a name="7.B.7"><h5>7.B.7. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS WHEN TWO ARMIES WITH EQUAL SUPPORT BOUNCE</h5></a>
<p>Comparable with the previous test case, but now the bouncing armies have support.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok

China:
A Manchuria Supports A Seoul - Vladivostok
A Seoul - Vladivostok

Japan:
F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok
F Sea of Japan Supports F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok
</pre>
<p>Since the Japanese fleet and the Chinese army bounce in Vladivostok,
the army from Moscow can slip through and end in Vladivostok.

<a name="7.B.8"><h5>7.B.8. TEST CASE, TSR BOUNCES WHEN OTHER FORCES ARE UNBALANCED</h5></a>
<p>Comparable with the previous test case, but now the two other
moving units are unbalanced and the TSR can not take advantage of that.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Manchuria Supports A Moscow - Vladivostok

China:
A Seoul - Vladivostok

Japan:
F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok
F Sea of Japan Supports F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok
</pre>
<p>Now the Russian army from Moscow bounces with the fleet from
Japan. And the Russian army will end in Irkutsk

<a name="7.B.9"><h5>7.B.9. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS TRHOUGH AS LONG AS RUSSIAN ARMY HOLDS</h5></a>
<p>When an army using the TSR passes through another Russian army
on the railroad, and that army holds, it will pass as long as
the Russian holds. Even when it is under attack. The army using the TSR is
not part of a beleaguered garrison.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Krasnoyarsk Hold

China:
A Mongolia - Krasnoyarsk
</pre>
<p>The army from Moscow will not bounce on the army from Mongolia,
because the army in Krasnoyarsk is defending the place.

<a name="7.B.10"><h5>7.B.10. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS EVEN WHEN RUSSIAN ARMY IS MOVING AWAY</h5></a>
<p>When an army using the TSR passes through another Russian army
on the railroad, and that army tries to move away, it can still
have benefit from the army moving away, when that army bounces.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Krasnoyarsk - Semipalatinsk

China:
A Mongolia - Krasnoyarsk
A Urumchi - Semipalatinsk
</pre>
<p>The army in Krasnoyarsk bounces in Semipalatinsk and remains
in Krasnoyarsk, it can still help the army from Moscow
passing through Krasnoyarsk. The army from Moscow will end
in Vladivostok.

<a name="7.B.11"><h5>7.B.11. TEST CASE, TSR CAN ONLY BOUNCE ONCE</h5></a>
<p>When an army using the TSR bounces, it has no effect on the
remaining part of the move.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok

China:
A Mongolia - Krasnoyarsk
A Manchuria - Irkutsk
</pre>
<p>The Russian army will bounce in Krasnoyarsk and end in Omsk.
The Chinese army in Mongolia will bounce and stay in Mongolia.
The army in Manchuria will just move to Irkutsk.

<a name="7.B.12"><h5>7.B.12. TEST CASE, COMPLEX BOUNCE WITH TSR</h5></a>
<p>The adjudicator can easily choke on a bounce of the departure  of the TSR.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Perm - Orenburg

Britain:
A Tashkent - Orenburg
A Akmolinsk - Omsk

Turkey:
A Baku - Moscow
</pre>
<p>The army from Moscow can pass through Perm, but will bounce on the
British army in Omsk. It can not end in Perm, because the army in
Perm bounces also. The army has to stay in Moscow. This means that
the move of Turkey will fail.

<a name="7.B.13"><h5>7.B.13. TEST CASE, A MOVE WITH THE TSR CAN NOT DISLODGE UNIT</h5></a>
<p>A move with the TSR is not an attack, so it can not dislodge a unit.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Irkutsk Supports A Moscow - Vladivostok

China:
A Vladivostok Hold
</pre>
<p>Although the support from Irkutsk is possible, the Chinese army in
Vladivostok is not dislodged.

<a name="7.B.14"><h5>7.B.14. TEST CASE, A MOVE WITH THE TSR CAN NOT CUT SUPPORT</h5></a>
<p>A move with the TSR is not an attack, so it can not cut support.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Seoul Hold

China:
A Vladivostok Supports A Manchuria - Seoul
A Manchuria - Seoul
</pre>
<p>The support of Vladivostok is not cut. So, the Russian army in Seoul
is dislodged.

<a name="7.B.15"><h5>7.B.15. TEST CASE, A MOVE WITH THE TSR CAN RECEIVE A SUPPORT TO WIN A BATTLE</h5></a>
<p>Although a move with the TSR is not an attack and can not dislodge
a unit, it can win a battle when the sector is initially empty. Note,
that a move with the TSR can only receive support on the last part of the move.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Irkutsk Supports A Moscow - Vladivostok

Japan:
F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok
</pre>
<p>The Russian move with the TSR succeeds and ends in Vladivostok. The Japanese
fleet will stay in the Okhotsk Sea.

<a name="7.B.16"><h5>7.B.16. TEST CASE, A MOVE WITH THE TSR CAN PREVENT DISLODGEMENT</h5></a>
<p>Although a move with the TSR is not an attack and can not dislodge
a unit, it can prevent that it is dislodged by another unit.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Manchuria Supports A Moscow - Vladivostok

Japan:
F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok
F Sea of Japan Supports F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok

China:
A Vladivostok Hold
</pre>
<p>The Russian move with the TSR prevents that the Japanese fleet in the
Okhotsk Sea will dislodge the Chinese fleet in Vladivostok.

<a name="7.B.17"><h5>7.B.17. TEST CASE, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT WITH THE TSR IS POSSIBLE</h5></a>
<p>Well, look if the adjudicator can handle circular movement.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Omsk Hold
A Krasnoyarsk - TSR - Moscow

China:
A Perm - Orenburg
A Orenburg - Akmolinsk
A Akmolinsk - Krasnoyarsk

Turkey:
A Odessa - Moscow
</pre>
<p>The Russian army in Krasnoyarsk will bounce in Moscow on the Turkish
army. But the Russian army and the Chinese armies can still make a
circular movement. All Chinese armies will move and the Russian army
will end in Perm.

<a name="7.B.18"><h5>7.B.18. TEST CASE, TSR CAN NOT PASS AN UNOWNED SUPPLY CENTER</h5></a>
<p>It must recapture supply center first (Avalon Hill errata).
<p>Omsk is not owned by Russia.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
</pre>
<p>Move will end in Omsk.

<a name="7.B.19"><h5>7.B.19. TEST CASE, TSR MAY LEAVE AN UNOWNED SUPPLY CENTER</h5></a>
<p>An army may leave an unowned supply center on TSR. This will probably only occur
when Russia cooperates with another power and does not want to take over the supply
center.
<p>Omsk is not owned by Russia.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Omsk - TSR - Vladivostok
</pre>
<p>Move will end in Vladivostok.

<a name="7.B.20"><h5>7.B.20. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS AN UNOWNED SUPPLY CENTER WHEN ANOTHER ARMY IS HOLDING</h5></a>
<p>If an army is holding an unowned supply center, the TSR does not need to stop there.
<p>Omsk is not owned by Russia.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Omsk Hold
</pre>
Army in Moscow will end in Vladivostok.

<a name="7.B.21"><h5>7.B.21. TEST CASE, TSR CAN NOT PASS AN UNOWNED SUPPLY CENTER WHEN ARMY IS MOVING AWAY</h5></a>
<p>When another army holding the unowned supply center moves away, the TSR should
recapture it.
<p>Omsk is not owned by Russia.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Omsk - Akmolinsk
</pre>
<p>Army in Moscow must stop in Omsk to capture the supply center.

<a name="7.B.22"><h5>7.B.22. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS AN UNOWNED SUPPLY CENTER WHEN ARMY MOVING AWAY BOUNCES</h5></a>
<p>Well when the army bounces, the TSR can just go on.
<p>Omsk is not owned by Russia.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Omsk - Akmolinsk

Britain:
A Tashkent - Akmolinsk
</pre>
<p>The army from Moscow does not need to stop in Omsk, since the army
there bounces. The army from Moscow ends in Vladivostok.

<a name="7.B.23"><h5>7.B.23. TEST CASE, SIMPLE TWO ARMY TSR PARADOX</h5></a>
<p>A Russian army can rail through another army. But when that army moves, it bounces.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Omsk - Krasnoyarsk
</pre>
<p>The part from Perm to Omsk and Omsk to Krasnoyarsk is part of the paradoxical situation.
The part from Omsk to Krasnoyarsk fails, but is still able to bounce the army that comes
from Omsk. This means that the TSR move ends in Perm and the army Omsk stays in Omsk

<a name="7.B.24"><h5>7.B.24. TEST CASE, COMPLEX TSR PARADOX</h5></a>
<p>This paradox involves more armies.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok

Britain:
A Perm - Orenburg
A Orenburg - Akmolinsk
A Akmolinsk - Krasnoyarsk

China:
A Manchuria - Irkutsk
</pre>
<p>Whether the army Moscow can reach Krasnoyarsk is part of the paradoxical situation.
According to the paradox rule, the part from Omsk to Krasnoyarsk fails, but is still
able to bounce the British army in Akmolinsk. When this is decided, we continue with
the normal rules. The move from Perm to Orenburg will fail and that means that the
army in Moscow can not pass Perm and will stay in Moscow. The Chinese move from
Manchuria to Irkutsk is not part of the paradoxical situation. This move will succeed.

<a name="7.B.25"><h5>7.B.25. TEST CASE, TSR SUPPLY CENTER PARADOX</h5></a>
<p>The need to recapture the supply center can cause a paradox.
<p>Omsk is not owned by Russia.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
A Omsk - Akmolinsk
A Krasnoyarsk Hold

China:
A Akmolinsk - Semipalatinsk
A Semipalatinsk - Urumchi
A Urumchi - Mongolia
A Mongolia - Irkutsk
</pre>
<p>There are two resolutions to this set of orders in which all rules
are obeyed. You can say that all Chinese armies move and the Russian
army in Omsk moves. In this way the TSR has to stop in Omsk to
recapture the Supply center. The other resolution is that the army in
Omsk does not move. In that case, the TSR can bounce in Irkutsk with
the Chinese army. And this will indeed cause the army in Omsk not
to move. The paradox rule says the last part of the paradoxical situation
(the part from Krasnoyrask to Irkutsk) fails but is still able to bounce
another army. So, all Chinese armies will not move and the Russian army
in Moscow will end in Perm.

<a name="7.B.26"><h5>7.B.26. TEST CASE, BALANCED HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE WITH TSR</h5></a>
<p>Look if the adjudicator can handle this.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Omsk
A Perm - Moscow
</pre>
<p>Both armies fail to move.

<a name="7.B.27"><h5>7.B.27. TEST CASE, UNBALANCED HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE WITH TSR</h5></a>
<p>Now the army is attacked in is departure place.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Omsk

Britain:
A Perm - Moscow
A Orenburg - Perm
A Baku Supports A Perm - Moscow

</pre>
<p>The British army in Perm will dislodge the army in Moscow and the
army in Orenburg will advance to Perm (not bounced).

<a name="7.B.28"><h5>7.B.28. TEST CASE, SUPPORTED HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE WITH TSR</h5></a>
<p>A supported head to head battle must also be handled correctly.
<p><pre>
Britain:
A Perm - Moscow
A Orenburg Supports A Perm - Moscow

Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Perm
A Omsk Supports A Moscow - Perm
</pre>
<p>No unit will move.

<a name="7.B.29"><h5>7.B.29. TEST CASE, TSR CAN'T DISLODGE IN HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE</h5></a>
<p>Although the TSR can win a head to head battle, it can not dislodge a unit.
<p><pre>
Britain:
A Perm - Moscow

Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Perm
A Omsk Supports A Moscow - Perm
</pre>
<p>No unit will move.

<a name="7.B.30"><h5>7.B.30. TEST CASE, DEPARTURE PLACE DISLODGE WITH SUPPORT FROM ARMY ON TSR</h5></a>
<p>Now, the support is coming from the army that is on the TSR.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Omsk

Britain:
A Perm Supports A Orenburg - Moscow
A Orenburg - Moscow
</pre>
<p>The British army in Orenburg will dislodge the army in Moscow.

<a name="7.B.31"><h5>7.B.31. TEST CASE, TSR PARADOX WITH DEPARTING TRAIN</h5></a>
<p>Whether the train leaves or not, can cause a paradox.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Krasnoyarsk
A Perm Hold
A Orenburg - Moscow
A Omsk - Orenburg

Britain:
A Akmolinsk - Omsk
</pre>
<p>If the army in Omsk stays, the TSR can slip trough and end in
Krasnoyarsk. But in that case the other Russian armies can
advance end the army in Omsk does not stay. If the army in Omsk
leaves, the TSR bounces on the British army. The army has to stay
in Moscow. This makes it impossible that the army in Omsk leaves.
According to the paradox rule, the last part of the paradoxical situation
(that is the part from Perm to Omsk) fails but is still able to bounce
another army. So, the army in Moscow stays in Moscow and the British
army in Akmolinks stays in Akmolinsk.

<a name="7.B.32"><h5>7.B.32. TEST CASE, NO RETREAT WITH TSR</h5></a>
<p>It is not allowed to use a convoy during retreat. Assume the same for
the Trans-Siberian Railroad.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow Hold

Turkey:
A Odessa - Moscow
A Baku Supports A Odessa - Moscow
</pre>
<p>Army in Moscow is dislodged. When Russia retreats as follows:
<p><pre>
A Moscow TSR Vladivostok
</pre>
<p>This is illegal and the army in Moscow is disbanded.

<a name="7.B.33"><h5>7.B.33. TEST CASE, ONLY ONE UNIT CAN USE THE TSR</h5></a>
<p>A short circuit occurs when two units are starting to use the Trans-Siberian
Railroad.
<p><pre>
Russia:
A Moscow - TSR - Omsk
A Vladivostok - TSR - Krasnoyarsk
</pre>
<p>Both moves fail (they can receive support to hold).

<a name="7.B.34"><h5>7.B.34. TEST CASE, ONLY RUSSIA MAY USE THE TSR</h5></a>
<p>Other countries are not able to control this advanced technology.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
A Moscow - TSR - Perm
</pre>
<p>The move fails (without the attempt to use the Trans-Siberian Railroad,
the move would succeed).

<a name="7.C"><h4>7.C. TEST CASES, SUEZ CANAL OPTIONAL RULE</h4></a>

<a name="7.C.1"><h5>7.C.1. TEST CASE, FLEET CAN NOT TAKE SUEZ CANAL IF NOT PERMITTED</h5></a>
<p>The fleet that wants to use the Suez Canal must have permission.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
A Egypt Hold

Russia:
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
</pre>
<p>The move of the Russian fleet fails, because it has no permission.

<a name="7.C.2"><h5>7.C.2. TEST CASE, FLEET CAN TAKE SUEZ CANAL IF PERMITTED</h5></a>
<p>The fleet that wants to use the Suez Canal must have permission.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
A Egypt Hold
SC F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea

Russia:
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
</pre>
<p>
The move of the Russian fleet succeeds.

<a name="7.C.3"><h5>7.C.3. TEST CASE, IMPLICIT PERMISSION FOR OWN UNIT</h5></a>
<p>It is not necessary to give permission to own unit.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
A Egypt Hold
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
</pre>
<p>
The move of the Turkish fleet succeeds.

<a name="7.C.4"><h5>7.C.4. TEST CASE, EXPLICIT PERMISSION DENIES IMPLICIT PERMISSION</h5></a>
<p>Only one unit gets permission. That means that when a unit is given
permission, own units do not get permission.
<p><pre>
Russia:
F Egypt Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
SC F Red Sea - Mediterranean Sea

Britain:
F Mecca Supports F Aden - Red Sea
F Aden - Red Sea

Turkey:
F Red Sea - Mediterranean Sea
</pre>
<p>Since Russia gives explicit permission to the Turkish fleet,
the permission to its own fleet in the Mediterranean Sea is denied.
That means that the move Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea fails and
that there is no beleaguered garrison in the Red Sea. The British
fleet in Aden will dislodge the Turkish fleet in the Red Sea.

<a name="7.C.5"><h5>7.C.5. TEST CASE, ONLY ONE IMPLICIT PERMISSION</h5></a>
<p>When both own units try to move through the canal, none of them
gets permission.
<p><pre>
Russia:
F Egypt Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Red Sea - Mediterranean Sea

Britain:
F Mecca Supports F Aden - Red Sea
F Aden - Red Sea
</pre>
<p>Both the move from Mediterranean Sea to Red Sea as the move from Red Sea
to Mediterranean fail, because they don't get permission (only one unit
can get permission). That means that the fleet in the Red Sea is not part
of a beleaguered garrison and will be dislodged by the British fleet in
Aden.

<a name="7.C.6"><h5>7.C.6. TEST CASE, NO HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE THROUGH CANAL</h5></a>
<p>Since only one unit can get permission a head to head battle
through the canal is not possible.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
F Egypt Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea

Britain:
F Red Sea - Mediterranean Sea
F Syria Supports F Red Sea - Mediterranean Sea
</pre>
<p>The British fleet in the Red Sea does not have permission and that move
fails. So, there is no head to head battle. The attack from the Turkish
fleet in the Mediterranean Sea on the Red Sea is just two to one and will
dislodge the English fleet in the Red Sea.

<a name="7.C.7"><h5>7.C.7. TEST CASE, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT THROUGH THE CANAL</h5></a>
<p>Circular movement with a move through the canal is possible.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
F Egypt Hold
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Red Sea - Mecca
A Mecca - Syria
F Syria - Mediterranean Sea
</pre>
<p>All units except the unit in Egypt will advance.

<a name="7.C.8"><h5>7.C.8. TEST CASE, SUEZ CANAL MOVE OUT PARADOX</h5></a>
<p>If the Egyptian fleet just follows the fleet using the Suez Canal,
you have a paradox.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Egypt - Mediterranean Sea
</pre>
<p>If the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea moves, the fleet in Egypt can
also moves, which makes the move of the Mediterranean Sea impossible. In
case of a paradox the Suez Canal move fails. So, both units hold. Note
that in this case it is insufficient to use a paradox rule that
says that only the support is not cut (comparable to the 1971 rule with
possible disrupted convoys, see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>).

<a name="7.C.9"><h5>7.C.9. TEST CASE, SCHWARZ'S FIRST SUEZ CANAL PARADOX</h5></a>
<p>A more complex move out paradox.
<p><pre>
Britain:
A Egypt - Mecca
A Syria Supports A Egypt - Mecca
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea

Turkey:
A Arabia - Mecca
F Red Sea Supports A Arabia - Mecca
</pre>
<p>If the support in the Red Sea is cut, the army in Egypt can move out.
But when it moves out, the support in the Red Sea can not be cut.
When the paradox rule is used, the fleet in Mediterranean Sea fails to move
and does not have any effect on the Red Sea. That means that there is still
a bounce in Mecca and the army in Egypt and Arabia will fail to move.

<a name="7.C.10"><h5>7.C.10. TEST CASE, SCHWARZ'S SECOND SUEZ CANAL PARADOX</h5></a>
<p>In this paradox, the army in Egypt does not move out, but can
be dislodged.
<p><pre>
Russia:
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Egypt Hold

Britain:
F Red Sea Supports A Sudan - Egypt
A Sudan - Egypt

Turkey:
A Syria - Egypt
A Mecca Supports A Syria - Egypt
</pre>
<p>When the support of the Red Sea is cut, the fleet in Egypt will be
dislodged. But, when the fleet in Egypt is dislodged, the support can
not be cut. According to the paradox rule, the fleet in the Mediterranean
Sea will not advance and not cut support. This means that the fleet in
Egypt is not dislodged.

<a name="7.C.11"><h5>7.C.11. TEST CASE, SCHWARZ'S THIRD SUEZ CANAL PARADOX</h5></a>
<p>This case is similar to the previous case, but now the fleet in the Red
Sea is completely dislodged if the fleet in the Mediterranean is allowed
through the canal.
<p><pre>
Russia:
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Egypt Hold
F Eritrea Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea

Britain:
F Red Sea Supports A Sudan - Egypt
A Sudan - Egypt

Turkey:
A Syria - Egypt
A Mecca Supports A Syria - Egypt
</pre>
<p>This should be handled similar to the previous test case. The fleet in the
Mediterranean Sea will fail to move and not cut support. That means that the
fleet in the Red Sea will not be dislodged and can give support. The fleet
in Egypt will not be dislodged. Note that in this case it is insufficient
to use a paradox rule that says that only the support is
not cut (comparable to the 1971 rule with possible disrupted convoys,
see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>). If only the support would not be cut,
then the fleet in the Red Sea is dislodged, but still gives valid support.
This violates the dislodge rule.

<a name="7.C.12"><h5>7.C.12. TEST CASE, SCHWARZ'S PARADOX ADAPTED TO TWO RESOLUTIONS</h5></a>
<p>The Schwarz paradoxes have all in common that there are no consistent
resolutions. This adapted version has two consistent resolutions.
<p><pre>
Russia:
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Egypt Hold

Britain:
F Red Sea Supports A Sudan - Egypt
A Sudan - Egypt
</pre>
<p>One consistent resolution is that the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea
cuts the support of the Red Sea. In this way the fleet in Egypt is not
dislodged. The other resolution is that the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea
does not cut support of the Red Sea, which means that the fleet in Egypt
is dislodged by the army in Sudan. Since it is dislodged, the fleet in the
Mediterranean indeed fails to cut the support in the Red Sea.
<p>When the paradox rule is used, then the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea
fails to move and does not cut the support in the Red Sea. That means that
the fleet in Egypt is dislodged by the army in Sudan.

<a name="7.C.13"><h5>7.C.13. TEST CASE, SUEZ CANAL DISRUPTED CONVOY PARADOX WITH TWO RESOLUTIONS</h5></a>
<p>The Suez canal paradoxes can be combined with convoys that are possibly disrupted.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
A Egypt Hold
F Mecca Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea

Britain:
F Red Sea Convoys A Aden - Egypt
A Sudan Supports A Aden - Egypt
A Aden - Egypt
</pre>
<p>There are two resolutions that are consistent with the rules. The Egyptian
army is dislodged or the fleet in the Red Sea is dislodged.
<p>If the 1982 rule is used (see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>) for resolving
disrupted convoy paradoxes, then there is nothing for this rule to apply.
In that case only the paradox rule for the Suez Canal has to be applied.
That means that the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea will fail to move.
The army in Aden convoys to Egypt, dislodging the army in Egypt.
<p>When the Szykman rule is used (<i>which I prefer</i>) or the 'All Hold' rule,
then the convoy from Aden to Egypt is part of the paradoxical situation.
Therefore, this convoy fails. So, both the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea
as well as the army in Aden do not move.

<a name="7.C.14"><h5>7.C.14. TEST CASE, SUEZ CANAL DISRUPTED CONVOY PARADOX WITH NO RESOLUTION</h5></a>
<p>Comparable with the previous test case, but now there is no resolution that
is consistent with the rules.
<p><pre>
Turkey:
A Egypt - Sudan
F Mecca Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea

Britain:
F Red Sea Convoys A Aden - Sudan
A Aden - Sudan
</pre>
<p>If the British fleet in the Red Sea is dislodged by the Turkish fleet
in the Mediterranean Sea, then the Turkish army in Egypt will not bounce
on the convoying army in Aden. But in that case, the fleet in the
Mediterranean Sea may not move. But if it not moves, the army in
Egypt will bounce on the army in Aden.
<p>If the 1982 rule is used (see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>) for
resolving disrupted convoy paradoxes, then there is nothing for this rule to
apply. In that case only the paradox rule for the Suez Canal has to be
applied. That means that the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea will fail to
move and not cut support. The army in Aden bounces on the army from
Egypt in Sudan. So, both armies will fail to move.
<p>If the Szykman rule is used (<i>which I prefer</i>), then the convoy will
also fail to move and have no effect on Sudan. That means that the army in
Egypt can move to Sudan.
<p>If the 'All Hold' rule is used, then the army in Egypt is part of the paradox
and should also hold. That means that none of the units will move.

<a name="7.D"><h4>7.D. TEST CASES, TRANS-SIBERIAN RAILROAD AND SUEZ CANAL COMBINED ISSUES</h4></a>

<a name="7.D.1"><h5>7.D.1. TEST CASES, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT WITH TSR, CONVOY AND SUEZ CANAL</h5></a>
<p>A gigantic circular movement is possible.
<p><pre>
Britain:
F Gulf of Aden Convoys A Eritrea - Vladivostok
F Red Sea - Eritrea
F West Indian Ocean Convoys A Eritrea - Vladivostok
A Eritrea - Vladivostok

China:
F Sea of Japan Convoys A Eritrea - Vladivostok

France:
F South China Sea Convoys A Eritrea - Vladivostok
F Sunda Sea Convoys A Eritrea - Vladivostok

Japan:
F East China Sea Convoys A Eritrea - Vladivostok
F Yellow Sea Convoys A Eritrea - Vladivostok

Turkey:
A Armenia - Angora
A Baku - Armenia
A Egypt Hold
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
A Moscow - Baku
F Angora - Mediterranean Sea

Holland:
F Java Sea Convoys A Eritrea - Vladivostok
F Southeast Indian Ocean Convoys A Eritrea - Vladivostok

Russia:
A Irkutsk Hold
A Vladivostok - TSR - Moscow
A Perm Hold
A Omsk Hold
A Krasnoyarsk Hold
</pre>
<p>All units ordered to move, will do so.

<a name="7.D.2"><h5>7.D.2. TEST CASE, KRUIJSWIJK'S PARADOX</h5></a>
<p>A paradox that contains the Suez Canal, the Trans-Siberian Railroad and
a possible disrupted convoy, is possible.
<p><pre>
Britain:
F Gulf of Aden Convoys A Sudan - Manchuria
F Red Sea Convoys A Sudan - Manchuria
A Sudan - Manchuria
F West Indian Ocean Convoys A Sudan - Manchuria

China:
A Manchuria Supports A Mongolia - Irkutsk
A Mongolia - Irkutsk

France:
F South China Sea Convoys A Sudan - Manchuria
F Sunda Sea Convoys A Sudan - Manchuria

Japan:
F East China Sea Convoys A Sudan - Manchuria
F Yellow Sea Convoys A Sudan - Manchuria

Turkey:
A Armenia - Baku
A Baku - Moscow
A Egypt - Syria
F Mecca Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
A Syria - Armenia

Holland:
F Java Sea Convoys A Sudan - Manchuria
F Southeast Indian Ocean Convoys A Sudan - Manchuria

Russia:
A Irkutsk Hold
A Vladivostok - Moscow
</pre>
<p>If the British fleet is dislodged in the Red Sea, the Convoy from
Sudan to Mancharia will fail. That means that the support of
Mancharia is not cut and the Russian army in Irkutsk is dislodged.
This prevents that the army in Vladivostok will not go to Moscow
for a bounce on the Turkish army in Baku. So, all Turkish armies will
move, including the army in Egypt. But if the army in Egypt moves,
the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea is not allowed to go to the Red
Sea to dislodge the British fleet. etc. etc.
<p>Well, judge this whatever you like.

<a name="8"><h3>8. ICE VARIANT</h3></a>
<p>Some variants have 'ice' sectors. You can not move to an
ice sector in fall or in winter (retreat). Nor can you
give support in fall.
<p>This is used in variant Loeb9.

<a name="8.A"><h4>8.A. TEST CASE, MOVE TO AN ICE SECTOR</h4></a>
<p>Move in winter to ice sector should fail.
<p>Loeb9 in fall:
<p><pre>
Norway:
F Norwegian Sea - Arctic Ocean
</pre>
<p>Move fails.

<a name="8.B"><h4>8.B. TEST CASE, MOVE FROM AN ICE SECTOR</h4></a>
<p>Move in winter from ice sector should fail.
<p>Loeb9 in fall:
<p><pre>
Norway:
F Arctic Ocean - Norwegian Sea
</pre>
<p>Move fails.

<a name="8.C"><h4>8.C. TEST CASE, SUPPORT FROM AN ICE SECTOR</h4></a>
<p>Support from an ice sector should fail in fall.
<p>Loeb9 in fall:
<p><pre>
Norway:
F Arctic Ocean Supports F Norwegian Sea - North Atlantic Ocean
F Norwegian Sea - North Atlantic Ocean

England:
F North Atlantic Ocean Hold
</pre>
<p>English fleet in North Atlantic Ocean should not be dislodged.

<a name="8.D"><h4>8.D. TEST CASE, NO RETREAT TO AN ICE SECTOR</h4></a>
<p>Retreat to an ice sector in autumn should fail.
<p>Loeb9 in fall:
<p><pre>
England:
F North Atlantic Ocean - Norwegian Sea
F North Sea Supports F North Atlantic Ocean - Norwegian Sea

Norway:
F Norwegian Sea Hold
</pre>
<p>Fleet of Norway is dislodged. It can not retreat to the Artic Sea.

<a name="8.E"><h4>8.E. TEST CASE, NO CONVOY IN ICE SECTOR</h4></a>
<p>A convoy in fall in an ice sector should fail.
<p>Loeb9 in fall:
<p><pre>
England:
A Liverpool - Siberia
F North Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Liverpool - Siberia
F Arctic Ocean Convoys A Liverpool - Siberia
</pre>
<p>Convoy fails and army stays in Liverpool.

<a name="9"><h3>9. CONVOYING COASTAL AREA VARIANT</h3></a>
<p>Some variants have coastal sectors in which convoying is
allowed (for instance in Ancient Mediterranean). This introduces
some difficulty in the rules, since convoys can now be disrupted
by normal army movement or convoyed armies.
<p>To execute these test cases, the standard map should be adapted.
The areas Denmark and Sweden are made convoyable coasts.
Berlin and Denmark are connected for fleets. That means that
fleets can move from Berlin to Denmark and vice versa, but armies
can not.

<a name="9.A"><h4>9.A. TEST CASE, DISLODGING OWN CONVOY</h4></a>
<p>You can argue that your own convoy can be dislodged.
<p> Denmark changed in convoyable coastal area and Berlin and
Denmark are connected for fleets:
<p><pre>
England:
F Denmark Convoys A Berlin - Denmark

Germany:
A Kiel Supports A Berlin - Denmark

Russia:
A Berlin - Denmark
</pre>
<p>Dislodging your own convoy is not possible. The English
convoy order is illegal because it convoys to itself.

<a name="9.B"><h4>9.B. TEST CASE, CONVOYING TO OWN AREA WITH A LOOP</h4></a>
<p>You may argue that in the previous test case there was no legal
convoyable path. Since Berlin - Denmark - Denmark contains a move
from Denmark to Denmark. This can be changed by an additional
convoying fleet
<p>Denmark changed in convoyable coastal area and Berlin and
Denmark are connected for fleets:
<p><pre>
England:
F Denmark Convoys A Berlin - Denmark

Germany:
A Kiel Supports A Berlin - Denmark

Russia:
A Berlin - Denmark
F Skagerrak Convoys A Berlin - Denmark
</pre>
<p>Now there is a convoy path Berlin - Denmark - Skagerrak - Denmark.
Still, dislodging your own convoy is not possible. The English
convoy order is illegal because it convoys to itself.

<a name="9.C"><h4>9.C. TEST CASE, CONVOY DISRUPTED BY ARMY</h4></a>
<p>Convoys can be disrupted by armies.
<p>Sweden changed in convoyable coastal area:
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Denmark - St Petersburg
F Sweden Convoys A Denmark - St Petersburg
F Gulf of Bothnia Convoys A Denmark - St Petersburg

Russia:
A Finland - Sweden
A Norway Supports A Finland - Sweden
</pre>
<p>The German convoy is disrupted by the Russian army in Finland.
Therefore, the German move to St Petersburg fails.

<a name="9.D"><h4>9.D. TEST CASE, CONVOY DISRUPTED BY CONVOYING ARMY</h4></a>
<p>Convoys can be disrupted by convoys.
<p>Sweden changed in convoyable coastal area:
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Denmark - Finland
F Sweden Convoys A Denmark - Finland

Russia:
F Gulf of Bothnia Convoys A St Petersburg - Sweden
F Norway Supports A St Petersburg - Sweden
A St Petersburg - Sweden
</pre>
<p>The German convoy is disrupted by the Russian convoy.
Therefore, the German move to Finland fails.

<a name="9.E"><h4>9.E. TEST CASE, TWO DISRUPTED CONVOYS PARADOX</h4></a>
<p>With the possible that a convoy can disrupt another
convoy directly (without support cut) a new paradox is
possible. Two convoys that disrupt each other directly.
<p>Denmark and Sweden changed in convoyable coastal areas:
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Kiel - Sweden
F Denmark Convoys A Kiel - Sweden
F Skagerrak Supports A Kiel - Sweden

Russia:
F Sweden Convoys A Finland - Denmark
A Finland - Denmark
F Baltic Sea Supports A Finland - Denmark
</pre>
<p>The German convoy disrupts the Russian convoy and the Russian
convoy disrupts the German convoy.
<p>This can not be resolved with the 1971, the 1982 or 2000 rulebook
(see also issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>).
<p>When the Szykman (<i>which I prefer</i>) rule is used, both convoys fail.
The 'All Hold' rule has the same result since there are no other units that move.

<a name="9.F"><h4>9.F. TEST CASE, DISRUPTED CONVOY SUPPORT PARADOX WITH NO RESOLUTION</h4></a>
<p>It is also possible that a convoy disrupts another convoys,
while that convoy cuts the support targeting the convoy from
which it is attacked.
<p>Sweden changed in convoyable coastal area:
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Denmark - Finland
F Sweden Convoys A Denmark - Finland
A Norway Supports A Denmark - Finland

Russia:
F Gulf of Bothnia Convoys A St Petersburg - Sweden
A St Petersburg - Sweden
F Baltic Sea Supports A St Petersburg - Sweden

England:
F Finland Supports F Livonia - Gulf of Bothnia
F Livonia - Gulf of Bothnia
</pre>
<p>The result depends on which paradox rule is used (see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>).
If the 1971 or 2000 rulebook is used, then there is no resolution.
<p>If the 1982 rulebook is used, the support of Finland is not cut.
That means that the fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia is dislodged by the
English fleet in Livonia. Since, this disrupts the Russian convoy
starting in St Petersburg, the Russian army in St Petersburg will stay
and the German fleet in Sweden is not dislodged.
<p>If the Szykman rule is used (<i>which I prefer</i>), both convoys are part of
the paradoxical situation. So, the German army in Denmark and the Russian army in
St Petersburg will not move. They have both no effect on the place where
they supposed to move to. That means that the English support in Sweden
is not cut and the Russian fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia is dislodged
by the English fleet in Livonia.
<p>If the 'All Hold' rule is used, then the tree moves fail. So, the
German army in Denmark, the Russian army in St Petersburg and the English
fleet in Livonia all stay. So, the Russian fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia is
not dislodged.

<a name="9.G"><h4>9.G. TEST CASE, DISRUPTED CONVOY SUPPORT PARADOX WITH TWO RESOLUTIONS</h4></a>
<p>The previous test case did not have a resolution that follows
all normal rules. It can be changed in such way that there are
two possible resolutions.
<p>Sweden changed in convoyable coastal area:
<p><pre>
Germany:
A Denmark - Finland
F Sweden Convoys A Denmark - Finland
A Norway Supports A Denmark - Finland
F Baltic Sea Supports F Livonia - Gulf of Bothnia
F Livonia - Gulf of Bothnia

Russia:
F Gulf of Bothnia Convoys A St Petersburg - Sweden
A St Petersburg - Sweden
F Finland Supports F Gulf of Bothnia
F Skagerrak Supports A St Petersburg - Sweden
</pre>
<p>There are two resolutions. The German army in Denmark advances to
Finland, cutting the support of the Russian fleet. The Russian fleet
in the Gulf of Bothnia is dislodged, such that the fleet in Sweden
will not be dislodged. The other resolution is that the army in
St Petersburg dislodges the fleet in Sweden. This prevents that
the support of the fleet in Finland is cut, such that the fleet in
the Gulf of Bothnia will not be dislodged.
<p>The results depends on which paradox rule is used (see issue <a href="#4.A.2">4.A.2</a>).
When the 1971 or 2000 rulebook is used, there is no resolution.
<p>When the 1982 rulebook is used, then the support of the Russian
fleet in Finland is not cut. That means that the Russian fleet in the
Gulf of Bothnia is not dislodged and that the convoy from St Petersburg
to Sweden is successful, dislodging the German fleet there. The German
fleet in Livonia will stay.
<p>When the Szykman rule is used (<i>which I prefer</i>), both convoys fail and the support of
the Russian fleet in Finland is not cut. This means that the fleet in the
Gulf of Bothnia is not dislodged. So, no unit will move.
<p>When the 'All Hold' rule is used, then the army in Denmark, the army
in St Petersburg and the fleet in Livonia will not move. So, no unit will
move and no unit will be dislodged.

<a name="10"><h3>10. DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER VARIANT</h3></a>
<p>In some variants armies can move between two sectors but with one
support less. If no support is given, then the move can not cut
support. Support can not be given over this corridor.

<a name="10.A"><h4>10.A. TEST CASE, SUPPORT CAN NOT BE CUT OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER</h4></a>
<p>If an army is passing a difficult passable border without any support, then it can
not cut support.
<p>In Loeb9:
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Naples - Sicily
F Tyrrhenian Sea Hold

Turkey:
F Sicily Supports F Ionian Sea - Tyrrhenian Sea
F Ionian Sea - Tyrrhenian Sea
</pre>
<p>The support is not cut and the fleet in Tyrrhenian Sea is dislodged.

<a name="10.B"><h4>10.B. TEST CASE, MOVE OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER WITH SUPPORTS CUT SUPPORTS</h4></a>
<p>If the move receives support, then it can cut support.
<p>In Loeb9:
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Naples - Sicily
F Ionian Sea Supports A Naples - Sicily
F Tunis Supports F Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea
F Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea

Spain:
F Sicily Supports F Tyrrhenian Sea
F Tyrrhenian Sea Hold
</pre>
<p>The support of Sicily is cut and the fleet in Tyrrhenian Sea is dislodged.

<a name="10.C"><h4>10.C. TEST CASE, MOVE OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER CAN NOT BOUNCE WITH NORMAL MOVE</h4></a>
<p>A move over difficult passable border can not prevent another unit to move into the sector.
<p>In Loeb9:
<p><pre>
Spain:
A Cordoba - North Africa

Italy:
A Tunis - North Africa
</pre>
<p>Spanish move of army fails. The move of Italy succeeds.

<a name="10.D"><h4>10.D. TEST CASE, TWO MOVES OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER CAN BOUNCE</h4></a>
<p>When two armies over a difficult passable border enter the same
sector, they bounce. Test whether the adjudicator can handle this
bounce with zero power.
<p>In Loeb9 with a changed map that has a difficult passable border between
North Africa and Tunis:
<p><pre>
Spain:
A Cordoba - North Africa

Italy:
A Tunis - North Africa
</pre>
<p>Both armies bounce.

<a name="10.E"><h4>10.E. TEST CASE, SUPPORT CAN NOT BE GIVEN OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER</h4></a>
<p>If the border is difficult to pass, it is impossible to give support
over this border.
<p>In Loeb9:
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Naples Supports F Tyrrhenian Sea - Sicily
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Sicily

Turkey:
F Sicily Hold
</pre>
<p>The army in Sicily should not be dislodged.

<a name="10.F"><h4>10.F. TEST CASE, SUPPORT PARADOX</h4></a>
<p>There is no known real paradox with the difficult passable borders.
However, in this test case the question is which of the supports is cut.
<p>In Loeb9 with edited map that has a difficult passable border between
Sicily and Tunis:
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Sicily - Tunis
A North Africa Supports A Sicily - Tunis

Spain:
A Cordoba - North Africa
A Tunis Supports A Cordoba - North Africa
</pre>
<p>Program should not come in an infinite loop. All armies should hold.
Preferable, the adjudicator reports a symmetric cut of supports. That
means both supports are cut or both supports are not cut.

<a name="10.G"><h4>10.G. TEST CASE, ALMOST PARADOX</h4></a>
<p>The previous test case extended with an additional fleet that prevents the paradox.
<p>In Loeb9 with edited map that has a difficult passable border between
Sicily and Tunis:
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Sicily - Tunis
A North Africa Supports A Sicily - Tunis

Spain:
A Cordoba - North Africa
A Tunis Supports A Cordoba - North Africa
F Western Mediterranean Supports A Cordoba - North Africa
</pre>
<p>Army in Cordoba should advance.
<p>Now test the same with an Italian fleet to see if there is no
arbitrary decision in the adjudicator:
<p>In Loeb9 with edited map that has a difficult passable border between
Sicily and Tunis:
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Sicily - Tunis
A North Africa Supports A Sicily - Tunis
F Western Mediterranean Supports A Sicily - Tunis

Spain:
A Cordoba - North Africa
A Tunis Supports A Cordoba - North Africa
</pre>
<p>Now the army in Sicily should advance.

<a name="10.H"><h4>10.H. TEST CASE, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT WITH DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER</h4></a>
<p>Adjudicator may choke on a circular movement when one of the
borders is difficult passable.
<p>In Loeb9:
<p><pre>
Italy:
F Sicily - Tyrrhenian Sea
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Naples
A Naples - Sicily
</pre>
<p>All units move.

<a name="10.I"><h4>10.I. TEST CASE, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT WITH BOUNCE</h4></a>
<p>Adjudicator may choke on a circular movement when one of the
borders is difficult passable and the unit using this border
is bounced.
<p>In Loeb9:
<p><pre>
Italy:
F Sicily - Tyrrhenian Sea
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Naples
A Naples - Sicily

Turkey:
F Ionian Sea - Sicily
</pre>
<p>No unit moves.

<a name="10.J"><h4>10.J. TEST CASE, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT CAN NOT BE DISRUPTED BY ARMY USING DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER</h4></a>
<p>When a circular movement is attacked by an army over a difficult
passable order, the circular movement will just go on.
<p>In Loeb9:
<p><pre>
Italy:
A North Africa - Tunis
F Western Mediterranean - North Africa
F Tunis - Western Mediterranean

Spain:
A Cordoba - North Africa
</pre>
<p>The Spanish army in Cordoba will not move and not disrupt the moves of
Italy. The Italian moves all succeed.

<a name="10.K"><h4>10.K. TEST CASE, DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER DURING RETREAT</h4></a>
<p>A difficult passable border is also difficult passable during retreat.
That means that when two armies retreat to the same sector and one of
the armies is using a difficult passable border, the army using the
normal border has a successful retreat.
<p>In Loeb9:
<pre>
Italy:
F Tyrrhenian Sea Hold
A Naples Hold

Turkey:
A Apulia - Naples
F Ionian Sea Supports A Apulia - Naples

Spain:
F Western Mediterranean Supports F Gulf of Lyon - Tyrrhenian Sea
F Gulf of Lyon - Tyrrhenian Sea
</pre>
<p>Both Italian units are dislodged. If they both retreat to Sicily, then
the fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea should advance and the army in Naples
is disbanded.

<a name="10.L"><h4>10.L. TEST CASE, DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER IS PROPERTY OF BORDER NOT OF SECTOR</h4></a>
<p>Adjudicators may mark the two adjacent sectors difficult passable, but
this is an incorrect situation.
<p>In Loeb9 with edited map that has a difficult passable border between
Sicily and Tunis:
<p><pre>
Italy:
F Western Mediterranean Supports A Tunis - North Africa
A Tunis - North Africa

Spain:
A North Africa Hold
</pre>
<p>Army in Tunis should advance.

<a name="10.M"><h4>10.M. TEST CASE, USING CONVOY INSTEAD OF DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER</h4></a>
<p>A difficult passable border can be by-passed by a convoy.
<p>In Loeb9:
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Naples - Sicily via Convoy
F Tyrrhenian Sea Convoys A Naples - Sicily
F Ionian Sea Supports A Naples - Sicily

Turkey:
A Sicily Hold
</pre>
<p>Since the move from Naples to Sicily is via convoy, the Turkish army in
Sicily is dislodged.

<a name="10.N"><h4>10.N. TEST CASE, USING CONVOY INSTEAD OF DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER CUTS SUPPORT</h4></a>
<p>If a difficult passable border is by-passed by a convoy, then it
cuts support.
<p>In Loeb9:
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Naples - Sicily
F Tyrrhenian Sea Convoys A Naples - Sicily
F Ionian Sea Hold

Turkey:
F Sicily Supports F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea
F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea
</pre>
<p>Since the army in Naples is using a convoy, the support of the fleet in
Sicily is cut. That means that the Italian fleet in the Ionian See is not
dislodged.

<a name="10.O"><h4>10.O. TEST CASE, SUPPORT ON ATTACK ON OWN ARMY OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER DOES NOT CUT SUPPORT</h4></a>
<p>A movement over a difficult passable border does not cut support. But
what if the movement was supported by an army of the same power of
the army that is attacked? I think it should still not cut support.
<p>In Loeb9:
<p><pre>
Italy:
A Naples - Sicily
F Ionian Sea Hold

Spain:
F Tyrrhenian Sea Supports A Naples - Sicily
F Sicily Supports F Ionian Sea

Turkey:
F Greece Supports F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea
F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea
</pre>
<p>The support of Sicilia is not cut, that means that the fleet in the
Ionian Sea is not dislodged.

<a name="11"><h3>11. BUILD IN ANY SUPPLY CENTER VARIANT</h3></a>
<p>Some variants allow building of units in any supply center that is owned.
The Chaos variant uses this rule.

<a name="11.A"><h4>11.A. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER</h4></a>
<p>Since there is no notion of 'home supply center', the 'civil disorder'
rules changes. It is expected that any owned supply center is treated
as home supply center.
<p>Chaos:
<p>Berlin owns Naples as only supply center.
<p>Berlin power has a unit in Prussia and Apulia.
<p>In Civil disorder the unit in Prussia should be removed.

<a name="12"><h3>12. 1898 VARIANT</h3></a>
<p>In the 1898 variant all powers start with one unit. The
home supply centers have to be captured first, before it
is allowed to build there. The problem with this variant is
that the home supply centers, the starting units and the
starting owning supply centers are not the same anymore. It
should be possible to distinguish those in the data files
that describe the variant.

<a name="12.A"><h4>12.A. TEST CASE, HOME SUPPLY CENTER HAS TO BE CAPTURED FIRST</h4></a>
<p>The home supply centers should not be marked owned when the game is started.
<p>1898:
<p>Germany did not yet captured Munich, but may build one.
<p><pre>
Germany:
Build A Munich
</pre>
<p>Build fails.

<a name="12.B"><h4>12.B. TEST CASE, BUILD IN NON-STARTING POSITION ALLOWED</h4></a>
<p>Builds are restricted to the home supply centers and not to the starting positions
of the units.
<p>1898:
<p>Germany owns Munich, Munich is empty and Germany may build one.
<p><pre>
Germany:
Build A Munich
</pre>
<p>Build succeeds.

<a name="12.C"><h4>12.C. TEST CASE, COUNTRIES CAN STILL ONLY BUILD IN HOME SUPPLY CENTERS</h4></a>
<p>The notion of home supply center still exists. That means that builds in other
supply centers are not allowed.
<p>1898:
<p>Germany owns Warsaw, Warsaw is empty and Germany may build one.
<p><pre>
Germany:
Build A Warsaw
</pre>
<p>Build fails.

<a name="12.D"><h4>12.D. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER STILL BASED ON HOME SUPPLY CENTERS</h4></a>
<p>When a unit has to be removed according to the civil disorder rules, then the distance
should still be calculated from the home supply centers and not to the owned or starting
supply centers.
<p>1898:
<p>Russia owns St Petersburg and has a fleet in the Black Sea and the Norwegian Sea.
<p>Russia has to remove one unit but does not order anything.
<p>The fleet in the Norwegian Sea is removed.

</body>
</html>
